https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677 Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #10 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]: 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. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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. [x]: 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 Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/sep/2029677-sep/licensecheck.txt [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. [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [ ]: 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 40960 bytes in 6 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]: 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sep- devel , python3-sep [ ]: 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]: 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) [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: sep-1.2.1-4.fc39.x86_64.rpm sep-devel-1.2.1-4.fc39.x86_64.rpm python3-sep-1.2.1-4.fc39.x86_64.rpm sep-debuginfo-1.2.1-4.fc39.x86_64.rpm sep-debugsource-1.2.1-4.fc39.x86_64.rpm sep-1.2.1-4.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/tmpnk07vg1i')] checks: 31, packages: 6 sep.src: W: strange-permission sep.spec 600 sep-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ======================== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.4 s ======================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sep-debuginfo-1.2.1-4.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/tmphoj_5ful')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ======================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 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: 5 sep-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.5 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-sep: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/sep.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/kbarbary/sep/archive/v1.2.1/sep-1.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 746223ff6cba9a2e32312be3e549c95d14f286d1a77871fedfe282a13c7f45e8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 746223ff6cba9a2e32312be3e549c95d14f286d1a77871fedfe282a13c7f45e8 Requires -------- sep (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) sep-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsep.so.0()(64bit) sep(x86-64) python3-sep (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3.11dist(numpy) rtld(GNU_HASH) sep-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sep-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sep: libsep.so.0()(64bit) sep sep(x86-64) sep-devel: sep-devel sep-devel(x86-64) python3-sep: python-sep python3-sep python3-sep(x86-64) python3.11-sep python3.11dist(sep) python3dist(sep) sep-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libsep.so.0.6.0-1.2.1-4.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit) sep-debuginfo sep-debuginfo(x86-64) sep-debugsource: sep-debugsource sep-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/sep/2029677-sep/srpm/sep.spec 2023-06-20 13:38:40.705014960 +0300 +++ /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/sep/2029677-sep/srpm-unpacked/sep.spec 2023-01-18 13:10:08.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.1) +## 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 + %global forgeurl0 https://github.com/kbarbary/sep @@ -82,3 +92,13 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Wed Jan 18 2023 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> - 1.2.1-4 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Tue Jan 11 2022 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> - 1.2.0-5 +- Ensure higher version than the last build of python-sep is used + +* Tue Dec 07 2021 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> - 1.2.0-1 +- Native package sep + +* Mon Apr 19 2021 Ingvar Stepanyan <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> +- RPMAUTOSPEC: unresolvable merge Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2029677 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, Perl, PHP, fonts, Ruby, Ocaml, Java, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) Please use SPDX expressions for licenses b) Can tests be run using tox? -- 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=2029677 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202029677%23c10 _______________________________________________ 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
