https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155 --- Comment #10 from Steve Cossette <farchord@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD-Inferno-Nettverk'. 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]: 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. 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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 4-Clause License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "ISC License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)". 98 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/farchord/Documents/reviews/2228155-dante/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [ ]: 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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 127908 bytes in 14 files. [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: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in dante-server [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dante- server , dante-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [ ]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dante-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-server-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-devel-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-debuginfo-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-debugsource-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-1.4.3-1.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/tmp7umvk_f7')] checks: 31, packages: 6 dante-server.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/sbin/sockd dante.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libdsocks.so libdsocks.so dante.src: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-server.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 1307274 dante.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dante/CREDITS dante.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dante/NEWS dante.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/socksify.1.gz dante-server.x86_64: W: empty-%postun dante.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libdsocks.so dante.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libsocks.so.0.1.1 dante-server.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/sbin/sockd ====================================== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 13 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 0.5 s ======================================= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dante-debuginfo-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-server-debuginfo-1.4.3-1.fc40.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/tmpuefffcr9')] checks: 31, packages: 2 dante-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-server-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk ======================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ======================================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ============================ 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: 6 dante-server.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/sbin/sockd /lib64/libcom_err.so.2 dante-server.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/sbin/sockd dante.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libdsocks.so libdsocks.so dante.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-server.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-server-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-Inferno-Nettverk dante-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 1307274 dante.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dante/CREDITS dante.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dante/NEWS dante.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/socksify.1.gz dante-server.x86_64: W: empty-%postun dante.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libdsocks.so dante.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/libsocks.so.0.1.1 dante-server.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/sbin/sockd 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 14 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 0.9 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- dante: /usr/lib64/libdsocks.so Source checksums ---------------- https://www.inet.no/dante/files/dante-1.4.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 418a065fe1a4b8ace8fbf77c2da269a98f376e7115902e76cda7e741e4846a5d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 418a065fe1a4b8ace8fbf77c2da269a98f376e7115902e76cda7e741e4846a5d Requires -------- dante (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh config(dante) ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2(gssapi_krb5_2_MIT)(64bit) libminiupnpc.so.17()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) dante-server (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(dante-server) dante libc.so.6()(64bit) libcom_err.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2(XCRYPT_2.0)(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2(gssapi_krb5_2_MIT)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libminiupnpc.so.17()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) dante-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dante libsocks.so.0()(64bit) dante-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dante-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- dante: config(dante) dante dante(x86-64) libdsocks.so()(64bit) libsocks.so.0()(64bit) dante-server: config(dante-server) dante-server dante-server(x86-64) dante-devel: dante-devel dante-devel(x86-64) dante-debuginfo: dante-debuginfo dante-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libdsocks.so-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libsocks.so.0.1.1-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) dante-debugsource: dante-debugsource dante-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2228155 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Python, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Java, Perl, Haskell 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=2228155 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202228155%23c10 _______________________________________________ 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
