https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235768 --- Comment #2 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: openssl1.1-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'QPL or GPLv3 or GPLv2'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license- fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: 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: [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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Q Public License 1.0", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]", "Q Public License 1.0 GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 56 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/objfw/2235768-objfw/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. [ ]: %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. [ ]: 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]: 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 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 0 bytes in 0 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libobjfw , libobjfwrt , libobjfwrt-devel , libobjfwtls , libobjfwtls-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. [ ]: 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: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). 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. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: objfw-1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm libobjfw-1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm libobjfw-devel-1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm libobjfwrt-1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm libobjfwrt-devel-1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm libobjfwtls-1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm libobjfwtls-devel-1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ofarc-1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ofdns-1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ofhash-1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ofhttp-1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm objfw-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm objfw-debugsource-1.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm objfw-1.0-1.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/tmpnae1wrwp')] checks: 31, packages: 14 objfw.src: W: strange-permission objfw.spec 600 libobjfw-devel.x86_64: E: rpath-in-buildconfig /usr/bin/objfw-config lines 69 libobjfw-devel.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/objfw-new ofarc.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/ofarc ofdns.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/ofdns ofhash.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/ofhash ofhttp.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/ofhttp libobjfw-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary objfw-compile libobjfw-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary objfw-config libobjfw-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary objfw-embed libobjfw-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary objfw-new ofarc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ofarc ofdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ofdns ofhash.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ofhash ofhttp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ofhttp objfw.x86_64: W: no-documentation ofarc.x86_64: W: no-documentation ofdns.x86_64: W: no-documentation ofhash.x86_64: W: no-documentation ofhttp.x86_64: W: no-documentation objfw.x86_64: E: no-binary == 14 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 19 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 8.8 s = Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: objfw-debuginfo-1.0-1.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/tmppv8l6gi9')] checks: 31, packages: 1 === 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.5 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: 13 libobjfw-devel.x86_64: E: rpath-in-buildconfig /usr/bin/objfw-config lines 69 ofhash.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/ofhash ofarc.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/ofarc ofhttp.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/ofhttp libobjfw-devel.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/objfw-new ofdns.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/ofdns ofhash.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ofhash ofarc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ofarc ofhttp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ofhttp libobjfw-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary objfw-compile libobjfw-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary objfw-config libobjfw-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary objfw-embed libobjfw-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary objfw-new ofdns.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ofdns ofhash.x86_64: W: no-documentation ofarc.x86_64: W: no-documentation ofhttp.x86_64: W: no-documentation objfw.x86_64: W: no-documentation ofdns.x86_64: W: no-documentation objfw.x86_64: E: no-binary 13 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 18 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 6.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://objfw.nil.im/downloads/objfw-1.0.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b5092f72ecf93492f70b1c6ce26ce127bf638981227f7472685bcf0c94899d01 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b5092f72ecf93492f70b1c6ce26ce127bf638981227f7472685bcf0c94899d01 https://objfw.nil.im/downloads/objfw-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6aa3bf590c6a7ae21cf13dbaa94a72926e67af5c7d5aef4a2b172543d1f26a3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6aa3bf590c6a7ae21cf13dbaa94a72926e67af5c7d5aef4a2b172543d1f26a3 Requires -------- objfw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libobjfw(x86-64) libobjfw-devel(x86-64) libobjfwrt(x86-64) libobjfwrt-devel(x86-64) ofarc(x86-64) ofdns(x86-64) ofhash(x86-64) ofhttp(x86-64) libobjfw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libobjfwrt(x86-64) libobjfwrt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libobjfw-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libobjfw(x86-64) libobjfw.so.1()(64bit) libobjfwrt-devel(x86-64) libobjfwrt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libobjfwrt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libobjfwrt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libobjfwrt(x86-64) libobjfwrt.so.1()(64bit) libobjfwtls (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libobjfw.so.1()(64bit) libobjfwrt.so.1()(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) openssl(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) libobjfwtls-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libobjfw-devel(x86-64) libobjfwrt-devel(x86-64) libobjfwtls(x86-64) libobjfwtls.so.1()(64bit) ofarc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libobjfw(x86-64) libobjfw.so.1()(64bit) libobjfwrt(x86-64) libobjfwrt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ofdns (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libobjfw(x86-64) libobjfw.so.1()(64bit) libobjfwrt(x86-64) libobjfwrt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ofhash (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libobjfw(x86-64) libobjfw.so.1()(64bit) libobjfwrt(x86-64) libobjfwrt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ofhttp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libobjfw(x86-64) libobjfw.so.1()(64bit) libobjfwrt(x86-64) libobjfwrt.so.1()(64bit) libobjfwtls(x86-64) libobjfwtls.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) objfw-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): objfw-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- objfw: objfw objfw(x86-64) libobjfw: libobjfw libobjfw(x86-64) libobjfw.so.1()(64bit) libobjfw-devel: libobjfw-devel libobjfw-devel(x86-64) libobjfwrt: libobjfwrt libobjfwrt(x86-64) libobjfwrt.so.1()(64bit) libobjfwrt-devel: libobjfwrt-devel libobjfwrt-devel(x86-64) libobjfwtls: libobjfwtls libobjfwtls(x86-64) libobjfwtls.so.1()(64bit) libobjfwtls-devel: libobjfwtls-devel libobjfwtls-devel(x86-64) ofarc: ofarc ofarc(x86-64) ofdns: ofdns ofdns(x86-64) ofhash: ofhash ofhash(x86-64) ofhttp: ofhttp ofhttp(x86-64) objfw-debuginfo: objfw-debuginfo objfw-debuginfo(x86-64) objfw-debugsource: objfw-debugsource objfw-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/objfw/2235768-objfw/srpm/objfw.spec 2023-09-08 17:23:04.795299507 +0300 +++ /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/objfw/2235768-objfw/srpm-unpacked/objfw.spec 2023-08-29 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,7 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autochangelog +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: objfw Version: 1.0 @@ -222,3 +227,5 @@ %{_datadir}/ofhttp -%autochangelog +%changelog +* Tue Aug 29 2023 John Doe <packager@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235768 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, Python, Perl, Ocaml, R, Ruby, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please add a copy of the GPL-3.0 license to the package b) Please use SPDX license identifiers: GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only OR QPL-1.0 c) Run ./autogen.sh in the build section, not the prep section d) Remove the section: Requires: libobjfw%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Requires: libobjfw-devel%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Requires: libobjfwrt%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Requires: libobjfwrt-devel%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Requires: ofarc%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Requires: ofdns%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Requires: ofhash%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Requires: ofhttp%{_isa} = %{version}-%{release} These will be linked as needed. e) GCC is preferred to Clang for builds if possible https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#compiler As it seems clang adds useful functionality, please add %global toolchain clang to the top of the spec file. d) The objfw package just seems to contain licenses. Is it needed? You could consider requiring all other packages to require objfw to get the licenses rather than having them as separate files in each package. e) Can a newer version of OpenSSL be used? f) Can you verify the signature? See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_verifying_signatures g) Can you run the tests? h) Is it possible to package documentation? -- 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=2235768 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202235768%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
