https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233324 Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Flags| |fedora-review+ CC| |decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Package installs properly when glycin-loaders is present, which I reviewed earlier. - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. False positive for Rust applications (also only caused by the vendored dependencies). - Package contains no static executables. Note: Static executables found: serde_derive-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_statically_linking_executables This is caused by vendored dependencies, which are removed in %prep. Packaged versions of serde_derive never contained prebuilt binaries. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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. [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. License breakdown automatically generated. [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/help/fa Unsure what this is about. Is "fa" some language identifier that is non-standard and not known by our tools? [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help/fa, /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/help/uk, /usr/share/help/C, /usr/share/dbus-1/services Does the package need to require dbus, or should it co-own /usr/share/dbus-1? [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 6918 bytes in 2 files. [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). [?]: 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. [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]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. rpmlint warnings look benign. [!]: 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). This is expected for packages that use rpmautospec. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: loupe-45~beta.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm loupe-debuginfo-45~beta.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm loupe-debugsource-45~beta.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm loupe-45~beta.1-1.fc40.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/tmpdhfmhzat')] checks: 31, packages: 4 loupe.src: W: strange-permission loupe.spec 600 loupe.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary loupe loupe.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/org.gnome.Loupe.svg /usr/share/help/C/loupe/figures/org.gnome.Loupe.svg 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://download.gnome.org/sources/loupe/45/loupe-45.beta.1.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b82be7ac580692c6cf563b57ffed97e4ace54585b31fd33404a406a6507746bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b82be7ac580692c6cf563b57ffed97e4ace54585b31fd33404a406a6507746bf Requires -------- loupe (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glycin-loaders libadwaita-1.so.0()(64bit) libadwaita-1.so.0(LIBADWAITA_1_0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgraphene-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-4.so.1()(64bit) libgweather-4.so.0()(64bit) liblcms2.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) loupe-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): loupe-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- loupe: application() application(org.gnome.Loupe.desktop) loupe loupe(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(org.gnome.Loupe.metainfo.xml) mimehandler(image/avif) mimehandler(image/bmp) mimehandler(image/gif) mimehandler(image/heic) mimehandler(image/jpeg) mimehandler(image/jxl) mimehandler(image/png) mimehandler(image/svg+xml) mimehandler(image/svg+xml-compressed) mimehandler(image/tiff) mimehandler(image/vnd-ms.dds) mimehandler(image/vnd.microsoft.icon) mimehandler(image/vnd.radiance) mimehandler(image/webp) mimehandler(image/x-dds) mimehandler(image/x-exr) mimehandler(image/x-portable-anymap) mimehandler(image/x-portable-bitmap) mimehandler(image/x-portable-graymap) mimehandler(image/x-portable-pixmap) mimehandler(image/x-qoi) mimehandler(image/x-tga) loupe-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) loupe-debuginfo loupe-debuginfo(x86-64) loupe-debugsource: loupe-debugsource loupe-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/deca/Downloads/2233324-loupe/srpm/loupe.spec 2023-08-22 00:16:28.808677293 +0200 +++ /home/deca/Downloads/2233324-loupe/srpm-unpacked/loupe.spec 2023-08-21 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## 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 tarball_version %%(echo %{version} | tr '~' '.') @@ -92,3 +102,4 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Mon Aug 21 2023 Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> - 45~beta.1-1 +- Initial Fedora packaging Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2233324 -o --enablerepo local Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, PHP, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Ocaml, Python, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH === Some notes for things that might or might not warrant additional changes: 1. Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/help/fa Unsure what this is about. Is "fa" some language identifier that is non-standard and not known by our tools? 2. Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help/fa, /usr/share/dbus-1, /usr/share/help/uk, /usr/share/help/C, /usr/share/dbus-1/services Does the package need to require dbus, or should it co-own /usr/share/dbus-1? 3. The package has cargo tests, so it *needs* to have "%bcond_without check". Otherwise, any test-only dependencies might not be present for compiling tests. This might work right now, but could break with any future version. I guess I should really document this (or flip the default for %cargo_generate_buildrequires if neither with/without are defined...) 4. Replace "BR: rust-packaging" with "BR: cargo-rpm-macros". The former no longer exists, and is only provided by the latter for backwards compatibility. -- 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=2233324 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202233324%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
