https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2234867 Javier Martinez Canillas <fmartine@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fmartine@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Javier Martinez Canillas <fmartine@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Below is my review, it looks mostly good to me but I've some questions with regard to bundled libraries and multiple licenses: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD'. 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++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License BSD 2-Clause License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License GNU General Public License", "The Unlicense", "zlib License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "ISC License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "MIT License BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License [generated file]", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "*No copyright* The Unlicense Public domain", "BSD 2-Clause License GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "The Unlicense GNU General Public License". 378 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: Especially check following dirs for bundled code: /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/ldelf/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/core/drivers/crypto/crypto_api/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/core/drivers/crypto/versal/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/lib/libdl/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/lib/libutils/isoc/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/lib/libutils/isoc/arch/arm/softfloat/source/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/core/drivers/crypto/se050/core/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/core/lib/libtomcrypt/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/ta/avb/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/core/arch/arm/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/core/lib/libfdt/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/ta/trusted_keys/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/core/drivers/crypto/caam/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/core/drivers/imx/dcp/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/lib/libunw/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/ta/pkcs11/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/lib/libmbedtls/mbedtls/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/lib/libutee/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/core/lib/scmi-server/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/core/drivers/crypto/se050/adaptors/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/core/arch/riscv/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/core/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/lib/libmbedtls/include, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/lib/libutils/ext, /home/javier/devel/linux/2234867-optee_os/upstream- unpacked/Source0/optee_os-3.22.0/core/drivers/crypto/se050/glue/include [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 273 bytes in 1 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). [x]: 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. [-]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: optee_os-3.22.0-1.fc39.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/tmp2gmgmb2b')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ============================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ============================================================================ Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/archive/3.22.0/optee_os-3.22.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2f15d07f20bf164e6bd38bf955eed70328b7f070eff63b4934bd307dbba5c2bc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2f15d07f20bf164e6bd38bf955eed70328b7f070eff63b4934bd307dbba5c2bc Requires -------- Provides -------- Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2234867 --mock-config fedora-39-aarch64 Buildroot used: fedora-39-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, Java, fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, R, Ocaml 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=2234867 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202234867%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
