https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170547 Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - spurious whitespaces after Version: 2.0b3 - cups-browsed.spec:177: W: macro-in-comment %post, it also contains spurious whitespace - %systemd_postun_with_restart cups-browsed.service: spurious whitespace - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_file_permissions It seems 'implicitclass' is binary why it cannot be read by others? If there is a reason why it cannot be read by others it should be written in the comment. - Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/cups Will it be covered by cups-filesystem? - %global _hardened_build 1 If the package is for recent fedora only, the explicit hardening is probably useless, it should be on by default since F23: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0", "FSF All Permissive License". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/yarda/git- fedora/cups-browsed/2170547-cups-browsed/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/cups [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 133120 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in cups-browsed [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: cups-browsed-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm cups-browsed-debuginfo-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm cups-browsed-debugsource-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm cups-browsed-2.0b3-1.fc39.src.rpm ======================================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpfyygy7f3')] checks: 31, packages: 4 cups-browsed.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/cups/backend/implicitclass 700 cups-browsed.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/lib/cups/backend/implicitclass 700 cups-browsed.spec:177: W: macro-in-comment %post ======================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s ======================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: cups-browsed-debuginfo-2.0b3-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ======================================================= rpmlint session starts ======================================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp6af6em6z')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ======================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ======================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3 cups-browsed.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/cups/backend/implicitclass 700 cups-browsed.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/lib/cups/backend/implicitclass 700 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/OpenPrinting/cups-browsed/archive/2.0b3/cups-browsed-2.0b3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 36c19b629c84f1567217e5f1b80e900a9fc2f7148f6fcfe18eca9f4e2660ca51 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 36c19b629c84f1567217e5f1b80e900a9fc2f7148f6fcfe18eca9f4e2660ca51 Requires -------- cups-browsed (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(cups-browsed) cups-filesystem libavahi-client.so.3()(64bit) libavahi-common.so.3()(64bit) libavahi-glib.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcups.so.2()(64bit) libcupsfilters.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libppd.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd cups-browsed-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cups-browsed-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- cups-browsed: config(cups-browsed) cups-browsed cups-browsed(x86-64) cups-browsed-debuginfo: cups-browsed-debuginfo cups-browsed-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) cups-browsed-debugsource: cups-browsed-debugsource cups-browsed-debugsource(x86-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: cups-browsed-2.0b3/configure.ac:61 Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2170547 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, R, Perl, Haskell, PHP, Python, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170547 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
