https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229384 --- Comment #1 from Robert Scheck <redhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- 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]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [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]", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "Apache License 2.0 GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Public domain GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License". 35 files have unknown license. [-]: 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. [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. [-]: 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]: 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 51200 bytes in 3 files. [x]: 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]: 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 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: [x]: 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. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: snapraid-12.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm snapraid-debuginfo-12.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm snapraid-debugsource-12.2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm snapraid-12.2-1.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/tmpq9dcrgq0')] checks: 31, packages: 4 snapraid.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/snapraid/COPYING-raid 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: snapraid-debuginfo-12.2-1.fc38.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/tmpiu6ro92w')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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 snapraid.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/snapraid/COPYING-raid 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/amadvance/snapraid/releases/download/v12.2/snapraid-12.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9d30993aef7fd390369dcaf422ac35f3990e8c91f0fb26151f5b84ccb73d3e01 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9d30993aef7fd390369dcaf422ac35f3990e8c91f0fb26151f5b84ccb73d3e01 Requires -------- snapraid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) snapraid-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): snapraid-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- snapraid: snapraid snapraid(x86-64) snapraid-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) snapraid-debuginfo snapraid-debuginfo(x86-64) snapraid-debugsource: snapraid-debugsource snapraid-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 snapraid --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 1. MUST: From my point of view, the current licensing breakdown is incomplete, my suggestion is: […] # snapraid itself is GPL-3.0-or-later but uses other source codes, breakdown: # Apache-2.0 AND GPL-3.0-or-later: cmdline/metro.c # BSD-2-Clause: tommyds/* # GPL-2.0-or-later: raid/* # GPL-3.0-or-later AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain: cmdline/murmur3.c # LGPL-2.0-or-later: cmdline/fnmatch.[ch] License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.0-or-later AND Apache-2.0 AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain AND BSD-2-Clause […] 2. SHOULD: Add missing BuildRequires to build all snapraid features, because: > checking for library containing blkid_probe_all... no -> BuildRequires: libblkid-devel 3. SHOULD: URL is reachable using HTTPS, consider updating the URL from http://…; to https://…; -- 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=2229384 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202229384%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
