https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2183981 Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx CC| |benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "zlib License". 356 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/dsda-doom/2183981-dsda- doom/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 153600 bytes in 24 files. [ ]: 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4126720 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dsda-doom-0.25.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm dsda-doom-debuginfo-0.25.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm dsda-doom-debugsource-0.25.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm dsda-doom-0.25.6-1.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/tmpcdxur5wk')] checks: 31, packages: 4 dsda-doom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dsda-doom dsda-doom.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/dsda-doom/COPYING ==================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 7.3 s ==================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dsda-doom-debuginfo-0.25.6-1.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/tmpx48bj0bl')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ==================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.7 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: 3 dsda-doom.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dsda-doom dsda-doom.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/dsda-doom/COPYING 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 7.9 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/kraflab/dsda-doom/archive/v0.25.6/dsda-doom-v0.25.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9855cdb2f403058cd81947486e86fa9c965f352360b0743af62c26a09174825c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9855cdb2f403058cd81947486e86fa9c965f352360b0743af62c26a09174825c Requires -------- dsda-doom (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc libGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLU.so.1()(64bit) libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libSDL2_image-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libSDL2_mixer-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdumb-0.9.3.so()(64bit) libfluidsynth.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmad.so.0()(64bit) libmvec.so.1()(64bit) libportmidi.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libvorbisfile.so.3()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) dsda-doom-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dsda-doom-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- dsda-doom: application() application(dsda-doom.desktop) dsda-doom dsda-doom(x86-64) mimehandler(application/x-doom-wad) dsda-doom-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) dsda-doom-debuginfo dsda-doom-debuginfo(x86-64) dsda-doom-debugsource: dsda-doom-debugsource dsda-doom-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2183981 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ruby, Haskell, R, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) In the spec file, perhaps add "or later" for cases they apply. b) License tool indicates: BSD 3-Clause License GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later GNU General Public License v2.0 or later ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dsda-doom-0.25.6/prboom2/src/gl_vertex.c Reading the file, expect it should just be GPL v2 or later, LGPL v2.1 or later seems to apply only if used outside of Doom, BSD3-Clause seems to have an additional clause: ** 4. When not used as part of GZDoom or a GZDoom derivative, this code will be ** covered by the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published ** by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at ** your option) any later version. Maybe check with legal as well since license modifications generally need checking: https://github.com/kraflab/dsda-doom/blob/master/prboom2/src/gl_vertex.c c) There seem to be some old tests which use rtest. Might it be possible to enable these? They are not enabled in GitHub CI, so maybe they should be removed or updated. d) Should the icon also be setup used by the desktop file? e) Should the desktop file be validated? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_files -- 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=2183981 _______________________________________________ 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
