https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567 --- Comment #1 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION ===== MUST items ===== 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: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/R-gpx/2179567-R-gpx/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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]: 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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local R: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires. [x]: The package has the standard %install section. [x]: Package requires R-core. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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. R: [x]: The %check macro is present [x]: Latest version is packaged. Note: Latest upstream version is 1.1.0, packaged version is 1.1.0 ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: R-gpx-1.1.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm R-gpx-1.1.0-1.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/tmpzgrzu8m8')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ============ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.0 s =========== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Source checksums ---------------- ftp://cran.r-project.org/pub/R/contrib/main/gpx_1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b1582856c477fed3adfd18510209b79bfbb70e99df5b4e2848a6c6bc6c1d2b75 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b1582856c477fed3adfd18510209b79bfbb70e99df5b4e2848a6c6bc6c1d2b75 Requires -------- R-gpx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): R(ABI) R(lubridate) R(rvest) R(xml2) R-core Provides -------- R-gpx: R(gpx) R-gpx Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2179567 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: R, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Ruby, C/C++, PHP, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, Perl, Python, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) In the description maybe helpful to add a link to the GitHub repository: https://github.com/bmewing/gpx b) Ask upstream to add MIT license file to https://github.com/bmewing/gpx c) The documentation needs https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/katex@0.15.3/dist/katex.min.js which will not be available when offline, though other R packages have this. d) Could the spec file more closely follow the format at: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/R/ in particular i) perhaps delete the R.css file ii) perhaps use %global rlibdir e) Perhaps use a single description section rather than %global _description as the description is only used once -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179567 _______________________________________________ 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
