https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177855 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- TODO: Upstream uses lowercase libxisf name in the release archives. I suggest changing a name of this package to the lowercase variant <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_general_naming>. It's similar to OpenSSH software which is packages as openssh RPM. FIX: If the source archive is not publicly available, move the source address into a comment and only keep the file name in Source0 value. FIX: If the 0.2.0 version has not yet been released and this archive is only a prerelease, then follow <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_prerelease_versions> to change release value accordingly. Licenses found in the sources archive: debian/copyright: GPL-3.0-or-later libxisf.cpp: GPL-3.0-or-later libxisf.h: GPL-3.0-or-later libXISF_global.h: GPL-3.0-or-later LICENSE: GPL-3.0 text lz4/: BSD-2-Clause pugixml/: MIT README.md: GPL-3.0-only (! this looks like an oversight by upstream) test/main.cpp: GPL-3.0-or-later utils.cpp: GPL-3.0-or-later variant.cpp: GPL-3.0-or-later zlib/: Zlib AND BSL-1.0 FIX: Add "GPL-3.0-only" to the license tag and ask upstream to clarify the license declaration found in REAMDE.md. "Licensed under GPLv3" means "GPL-3.0-only". Not "GPL-3.0-or-later" as it was probably intended. TODO: Constrain "cmake" build-dependency with ">= 3.14" (CMakeLists.txt:1). TODO: Explicitly enable building shared libraries with "-DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON" (CMakeLists.txt:11). All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint libXISF.spec ../SRPMS/libXISF-0.2.0-1.fc39.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/libXISF-* ======================================== 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: 6 ========= 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ======== rpmlint is Ok. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libXISF-0.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 13 01:00 /usr/lib/.build-id drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 13 01:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/65 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 38 Mar 13 01:00 /usr/lib/.build-id/65/622df4e43fabc84df20d8766d5fb975d8f4ebf -> ../../../../usr/lib64/libXISF.so.0.2.0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Mar 13 01:00 /usr/lib64/libXISF.so.0 -> libXISF.so.0.2.0 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 392408 Mar 13 01:00 /usr/lib64/libXISF.so.0.2.0 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 13 01:00 /usr/share/doc/libXISF -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 302 Mar 11 08:34 /usr/share/doc/libXISF/README.md drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Mar 13 01:00 /usr/share/licenses/libXISF -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 35121 Mar 11 08:34 /usr/share/licenses/libXISF/LICENSE $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libXISF-devel-0.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1766 Mar 11 08:34 /usr/include/libXISF_global.h -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 13060 Mar 11 08:34 /usr/include/libxisf.h lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 Mar 13 01:00 /usr/lib64/libXISF.so -> libXISF.so.0 File layout and permissions are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libXISF-0.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 glibc >= 2.37.9000-3 1 libc.so.6()(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.32)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.38)(64bit) 1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) 1 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) 1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) 1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) 1 liblz4.so.1()(64bit) 1 libpugixml.so.1()(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.15)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.18)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.20)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.21)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.26)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.29)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.30)(64bit) 1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) 1 libz.so.1()(64bit) 1 libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 1 rtld(GNU_HASH) $ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libXISF-devel-0.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 libXISF(x86-64) = 0.2.0-1.fc39 1 libXISF.so.0()(64bit) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libXISF-0.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 libXISF = 0.2.0-1.fc39 1 libXISF(x86-64) = 0.2.0-1.fc39 1 libXISF.so.0()(64bit) $ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/libXISF-devel-0.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 libXISF-devel = 0.2.0-1.fc39 1 libXISF-devel(x86-64) = 0.2.0-1.fc39 Binary provides are Ok. $ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/x86_64/libXISF{,-devel}-0.2.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok. The package builds in F39 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98812566). Ok. Otherwise, this package is in line with Fedora and CMake packaging guidelines. Please correct the FIX items, consider fixing TODO items, and provide updated spec file. -- 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=2177855 _______________________________________________ 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
