https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2026516 --- Comment #27 from Felix Wang <topazus@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file COPYRIGHT is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - 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 sentrypeer See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: 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: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: 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, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) FSF All Permissive License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/sentrypeer/licensecheck.txt [ ]: 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. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 51200 bytes in 4 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: %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]: 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]: 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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: sentrypeer-3.0.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm sentrypeer-debuginfo-3.0.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm sentrypeer-debugsource-3.0.0-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm sentrypeer-3.0.0-1.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/tmp3ckar9zt')] checks: 31, packages: 4 sentrypeer.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/sentrypeer sentrypeer sentrypeer.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/sentrypeer sentrypeer sentrypeer.spec:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 14) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sentrypeer-debuginfo-3.0.0-1.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/tmpijley92v')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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) ============================ 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 sentrypeer.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/sentrypeer sentrypeer sentrypeer.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/sentrypeer sentrypeer 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/SentryPeer/SentryPeer/v3.0.0/packaging/rpm/sentrypeer.service : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 36ecd4f040725a1977dc8ad5a08cea041c9a27702c235222153ad515143f6eb0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 36ecd4f040725a1977dc8ad5a08cea041c9a27702c235222153ad515143f6eb0 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/SentryPeer/SentryPeer/v3.0.0/packaging/rpm/sentrypeer.options : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f8f7b5c74497a33f4453dc4d9a9f71a1986ee9c7ef3d2073d7c9075925dd0f83 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f8f7b5c74497a33f4453dc4d9a9f71a1986ee9c7ef3d2073d7c9075925dd0f83 https://github.com/SentryPeer/SentryPeer/releases/download/v3.0.0/sentrypeer-3.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 677c0da05312cf730e7747b935b39f23d9994d7dd06edcfd023b625f248ce0ec CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 677c0da05312cf730e7747b935b39f23d9994d7dd06edcfd023b625f248ce0ec Requires -------- sentrypeer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(sentrypeer) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libjansson.so.4()(64bit) libmicrohttpd.so.12()(64bit) libosipparser2.so.15()(64bit) libpcre2-8.so.0()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) shadow-utils sentrypeer-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sentrypeer-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sentrypeer: config(sentrypeer) sentrypeer sentrypeer(x86-64) sentrypeer-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) sentrypeer-debuginfo sentrypeer-debuginfo(x86-64) sentrypeer-debugsource: sentrypeer-debugsource sentrypeer-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name sentrypeer --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, R, Haskell, Python, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -------- my comments: > License: GPLv2 or GPLv3 The license should be in SPDX license format, so it seems to be `GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only`. ref: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_basic_policy > Patch0: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/SentryPeer/SentryPeer/v%{version}/packaging/rpm/remove-runpatch.patch This link of the patch was not found now. Btw, the patch with upstream link or simple description comment is encouraged. ref: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_all_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment > %post > systemctl enable %{name}.service The service generally should not be enabled by default. remove this. ref: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DefaultServices/#_approved_exceptions When the package is upgraded, the service may restart only when the service is running. Maybe add the following lines: ``` %post %systemd_post sentrypeer.service %preun %systemd_preun sentrypeer.service %postun %systemd_postun_with_restart sentrypeer.service ``` ref: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd > %check section If the tests failed, you should find a way to fix it. It seems the tests failed currently. If the tests really cannot be fixed for now, you can disable it. Add some comments to explain will good. Tip: Adding a comment with URLs of the Spec and SRPM will triger automatic Copr build with a review.txt, which it will be helpful for the reviewer. ``` Spec URL: SRPM URL: ``` ref: https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service -- 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=2026516 _______________________________________________ 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
