https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421 --- Comment #2 from Mattia Verga <mattia.verga@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/qlogging- categories6/modemmanagerqt.categories See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/rpmbuild/review/2235595-kf6-modemmanager-qt/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ - Check licenses. You're packaging all license under 'LICENSES', but only a subset seems to be used in the final binary RPM (BSD-3-Clause is only used in cmake directive, CC0-1.0 is only used in gitlab ci test definitions, LGPL-3-only seems unused). Moreover, there are a couple of LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-* license files which are not recognized by Fedora licensing, please check with Fedora legal if they are to be included in the final package. - No known owner of /usr/include/KF6 I suppose this is an issue of kf6-filesystem ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or generated", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "BSD 3-Clause License". 69 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmbuild/review/2235595-kf6-modemmanager- qt/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/KF6 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/KF6 [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. [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. [!]: 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. [!]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [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]: 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 7946 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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 kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel [?]: 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: Bad spec filename: /home/rpmbuild/review/2235595-kf6-modemmanager-qt/srpm- unpacked/kf6-modemmanager-qt.spec 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: kf6-modemmanager-qt-5.240.0^20230813.164311.fa71a4d-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel-5.240.0^20230813.164311.fa71a4d-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm kf6-modemmanager-qt-debuginfo-5.240.0^20230813.164311.fa71a4d-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm kf6-modemmanager-qt-debugsource-5.240.0^20230813.164311.fa71a4d-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm kf6-modemmanager-qt-5.240.0^20230813.164311.fa71a4d-1.fc40.src.rpm ====================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpdpu1taiy')] checks: 31, packages: 5 kf6-modemmanager-qt.src: W: strange-permission kf6-modemmanager-qt.spec 600 kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation kf6-modemmanager-qt.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary kf6-modemmanager-qt.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary ======= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s ======= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: kf6-modemmanager-qt-debuginfo-5.240.0^20230813.164311.fa71a4d-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ====================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpim7n8kw2')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ======= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ======= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 4 kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation kf6-modemmanager-qt.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/modemmanager-qt/-/archive/fa71a4d9aeca8d836689c0ec11b19c0dd948cae6/modemmanager-qt-fa71a4d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bffb0ddb626085a129c805b547aa4484ef3e28851064cdb245ae06e4b9b63085 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b1893692862e5def2463670624b1c69eb7b75b2d1dde2f3ae78bf79bddf9c0ca diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- kf6-modemmanager-qt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): kf6-filesystem libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.5)(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6()(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Xml.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Xml.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ModemManager-devel cmake-filesystem(x86-64) kf6-modemmanager-qt libKF6ModemManagerQt.so.6()(64bit) qt6-qtbase-devel kf6-modemmanager-qt-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): kf6-modemmanager-qt-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- kf6-modemmanager-qt: kf6-modemmanager-qt kf6-modemmanager-qt(x86-64) libKF6ModemManagerQt.so.6()(64bit) kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel: cmake(KF6ModemManagerQt) cmake(kf6modemmanagerqt) kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel(x86-64) kf6-modemmanager-qt-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) kf6-modemmanager-qt-debuginfo kf6-modemmanager-qt-debuginfo(x86-64) libKF6ModemManagerQt.so.5.240.0-5.240.0^20230813.164311.fa71a4d-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) kf6-modemmanager-qt-debugsource: kf6-modemmanager-qt-debugsource kf6-modemmanager-qt-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235595 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Python, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2221421 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221421%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
