https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2022555 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |fedora-review? |in.net) | Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #8 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - New packages must use SPDX license expressions. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field Furthermore, this does not appear to be correct: # The vuwidget class is under GPLv3+. The rest is under GPLv2+. The GPLv3+ is # only included in the parameq_gui.so library. The other library, paramEQ.so, # contains only GPLv2+ code. …since the headers of gui/widgets/vuwidget.{cpp,h} indicate GPL-2.0-or-later. In fact, all of the source file headers indicate GPL-2.0-or-later, but COPYING is the GPLv3 text. I have asked upstream for clarification: Please clarify the license https://sourceforge.net/p/eq10q/bugs/24/ Consider something like this: # All source file headers indicate GPL-2.0-or-later, but the COPYING file # # contains the GPLv3 license text. Since there are no source files without # license statements in their headers, we assume this is an error, but we # have asked upstream to clarify: # # Please clarify the license # https://sourceforge.net/p/eq10q/bugs/24/ License: GPL-2.0-or-later - The distro compiler flags come later in the line than the hard-coded ones in CMakeLists.txt, so -O2 overrides -O3. This is good (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags), but it would be less confusing if you patched out the -O3. You are patching out -msse -mfpmath=sse on non-x86 platforms, but I think you should do this unconditionally; these are useless on x86_64 and i686 (already covered by the defaults). Maybe something like this? # https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags sed -i -e 's|-msse -mfpmath=sse||g' -e 's|-O3||g' CMakeLists.txt - All the fiddling with %{_target_platform} is unnecessary; so is the .. argument to %cmake. Change all of this: %build mkdir -p %{_target_platform} pushd %{_target_platform} %cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX="%{_libdir}/lv2" .. %cmake_build popd %install pushd %{_target_platform} %cmake_install popd to this: %build %cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX="%{_libdir}/lv2" %cmake_build %install %cmake_install - It’s no longer necessary to number patches. Instead of Patch0: lv2-eq10q-2.2-path-and-flags.patch Patch1: lv2-eq10q-2.2-exp10.patch Patch2: lv2-eq10q-2.2-cmake-2.8.12.patch Patch3: lv2-eq10q-2.2-typefix.patch […] %setup -q -n eq10q-%{version} %patch 0 -p1 -b .path-and-flags %patch 1 -p1 -b .exp10 %patch 2 -p1 -b .cmake-2.8.12 %patch 3 -p1 -b .typefix it is simpler to write: Patch: lv2-eq10q-2.2-path-and-flags.patch Patch: lv2-eq10q-2.2-exp10.patch Patch: lv2-eq10q-2.2-cmake-2.8.12.patch Patch: lv2-eq10q-2.2-typefix.patch […] %autosetup -n eq10q-%{version} -p1 - It’s good that each patch has an explanatory comment, but there should also be a comment about upstream status. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_all_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment - An easier and more thorough way to write this: chmod -x gui/widgets/templatewidget.cpp gui/widgets/templatewidget.h *.c *.h */*.c */*.h might be something like: find . -type f -perm /0111 -exec chmod -v a-x '{}' '+' - It seems like it would be better to Provide the old package name. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages Instead of: Obsoletes: lv2-EQ10Q-plugins < 2.2-8 Conflicts: lv2-EQ10Q-plugins < 2.2-8 Consider: Obsoletes: lv2-EQ10Q-plugins < 2.2-8 Provides: lv2-EQ10Q-plugins < %{version}-%{release} ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. Unversioned .so files are plugins located in an appropriate subdirectory: As an additional complication, some software generates unversioned shared objects which are not intended to be used as system libraries. These files are usually plugins or modular functionality specific to an application, and are not located in the ld library paths or cache. This means that they are not located directly in /usr/lib or /usr/lib64, or in a directory listed as a library path in /etc/ld.so.conf (or an /etc/ld.so.conf.d/config file). Usually, these unversioned shared objects can be found in a dedicated subdirectory under /usr/lib or /usr/lib64 (e.g. /usr/lib/purple-2/ is the plugin directory used for libpurple applications). In these cases, the unversioned shared objects do not need to be placed in a -devel package. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages These are packaged correctly, and no change is required. [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", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2022555-lv2-eq10q/licensecheck.txt New packages must use SPDX license expressions. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Should patch out -msse etc. unconditionally. [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. [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as mentioned) [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]: 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. [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. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream supplies no tests. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) OK: this is due solely to rpmautospec [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: lv2-eq10q-2.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm lv2-eq10q-debuginfo-2.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm lv2-eq10q-debugsource-2.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm lv2-eq10q-2.2-1.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/tmpna9ev_my')] checks: 31, packages: 4 lv2-eq10q.src: W: strange-permission lv2-eq10q.spec 600 lv2-eq10q.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: lv2-eq10q-2.2-exp10.patch lv2-eq10q.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: lv2-eq10q-2.2-cmake-2.8.12.patch lv2-eq10q.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch3: lv2-eq10q-2.2-typefix.patch lv2-eq10q.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided lv2-EQ10Q-plugins ================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.5 s ================ Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: lv2-eq10q-debuginfo-2.2-1.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/tmpe2tm_n39')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 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 lv2-eq10q.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided lv2-EQ10Q-plugins 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 5.7 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/bassup.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/compressor.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/compressor_sc.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/compressor_stereo.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/compressor_stereo_sc.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq10qm.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq10qs.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq1qm.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq1qs.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq4qm.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq4qs.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq6qm.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq6qs.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/gate.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/gate_stereo.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/gui/bassup_gui.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/gui/dynamics_gui.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/gui/eq10q_gui.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/gui/matrix_ms_gui.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/matrix_lr2ms.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/matrix_ms2lr.so Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/eq10q/eq10q-2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 337f4c703ba31902565faad1cd450cf0312ad5a48dc499661277f287b662b09a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 337f4c703ba31902565faad1cd450cf0312ad5a48dc499661277f287b662b09a Requires -------- lv2-eq10q (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libatkmm-1.6.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairomm-1.0.so.1()(64bit) libfftw3.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) libgdkmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libglibmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libgtkmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpangomm-1.4.so.1()(64bit) libsigc-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) lv2(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) lv2-eq10q-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lv2-eq10q-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- lv2-eq10q: lv2-eq10q lv2-eq10q(x86-64) lv2-eq10q-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) lv2-eq10q-debuginfo lv2-eq10q-debuginfo(x86-64) lv2-eq10q-debugsource: lv2-eq10q-debugsource lv2-eq10q-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/reviewer/2022555-lv2-eq10q/srpm/lv2-eq10q.spec 2023-04-20 09:54:17.043236297 -0400 +++ /home/reviewer/2022555-lv2-eq10q/srpm-unpacked/lv2-eq10q.spec 2023-04-16 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: lv2-eq10q Version: 2.2 @@ -74,3 +84,4 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Mon Apr 17 2023 Nils Philippsen <nils@xxxxxxxxx> - 2.2-1 +- Uncommitted changes Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2022555 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Java, PHP, fonts, Haskell, Python, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml 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=2022555 _______________________________________________ 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
