https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2219375 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxx.s | |e Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxx.s | |e --- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Note: review done with Fedora 38 chroot (fedora-review -b 2219375 -m fedora-38-x86_64) because fedora-review is currently broken for rawhide. Needs some changes. Package Review ============== Two issues found. See comments below regarding - the use of the "Public Domain" license tag - The error (E:) reported by rpmlint Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. The Fedora Licensing Guidelines https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/ says "The License: field for new packages as of July 2022 must be filled with the appropriate SPDX license identifier or expression from the list of allowed licenses for Fedora." The License tag "Public Domain" is a "legacy" tag, not SPDX. The corresponding SPDX tag is "LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain", however using this tag requires that the package license text is added to the public-domain-text.txt in the https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data git repository. So if you want to use this tag you first need to file a PR to add it to the file and have it approved by Fedora Legal. Since the actual license text is: "Public domain by anatoly techtonik <techtonik@xxxxxxxxx> Also available under the terms of MIT license Copyright (c) 2010-2015 anatoly techtonik" you could instead choose to publish this package in Fedora under the MIT license. [-]: 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. [-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Public domain", "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ellert/2219375-python-wget/licensecheck.txt See abive regarding the use of the "Public Domain" tag. [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines See the License tag issue above. [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). [!]: Rpmlint complains about non-executable script. Consider removing the shebang line in the wget.py file, e.g. using sed in %prep: sed 1d -i wget.py [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 Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. This is a SHOULD, so not a blocker. [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. [-]: 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]: 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: [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: python3-wget-3.2-1.fc38.noarch.rpm python-wget-3.2-1.fc38.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/tmppeuzfoby')] checks: 31, packages: 2 python3-wget.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/wget.py 644 /usr/bin/env python 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 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: 1 python3-wget.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/wget.py 644 /usr/bin/env python 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/47/6a/62e288da7bcda82b935ff0c6cfe542970f04e29c756b0e147251b2fb251f/wget-3.2.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 35e630eca2aa50ce998b9b1a127bb26b30dfee573702782aa982f875e3f16061 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 35e630eca2aa50ce998b9b1a127bb26b30dfee573702782aa982f875e3f16061 Requires -------- python3-wget (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-wget: python-wget python3-wget python3.11-wget python3.11dist(wget) python3dist(wget) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2219375 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, R, SugarActivity, Java, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, fonts 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=2219375 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202219375%23c1 _______________________________________________ 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
