https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214386 Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Flags| |fedora-review+ Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |klember@xxxxxxxxxx CC| |klember@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Fedora review rust-aes-siv-0.7.0-1.fc38.src.rpm 2023-07-02 $ rpmlint rust-aes-siv* =================================================================================== 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: 9 rust-aes-siv+alloc-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-aes-siv+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-aes-siv+getrandom-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-aes-siv+heapless-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-aes-siv+pmac-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-aes-siv+std-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-aes-siv+stream-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation ==================================================== 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ==================================================== + OK ! needs attention + rpmlint output looks good + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The license texts (Apache-2.0, MIT) are included in %license + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm SHA512 (aes-siv-0.7.0.crate) = e8be452c062dfd83d9147c6f05799e462e8732ca6fd04438da9619b9726d823a253bbc39251f1b71e271dc28644c9fcd90b36a95a5392b6c410b66548e10da83 SHA512 (Download/aes-siv-0.7.0.crate) = e8be452c062dfd83d9147c6f05799e462e8732ca6fd04438da9619b9726d823a253bbc39251f1b71e271dc28644c9fcd90b36a95a5392b6c410b66548e10da83 + Package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a locale handling + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all the directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files (CHANGELOG.md, LICENSE-APACHE, LICENSE-MIT, README.md are listed twice but that's expected with the rust2rpm generator) + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect the runtime of application n/a Static libraries should be in -static + Development files should be in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a Proper .desktop file handling + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages + Filenames are valid UTF-8 + Package does not depend on deprecated packages APPROVED -- 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=2214386 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202214386%23c2 _______________________________________________ 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
