https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241457 --- Comment #2 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 90 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libdicom/2241457-libdicom/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: 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. [x]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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 libdicom-tools [ ]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: libdicom-1.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm libdicom-devel-1.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm libdicom-doc-1.0.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm libdicom-tools-1.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm libdicom-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm libdicom-debugsource-1.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm libdicom-1.0.0-1.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/tmpxiv3qlca')] checks: 31, packages: 7 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 4.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libdicom-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm libdicom-tools-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.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/tmp8d9ovkam')] checks: 31, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.5 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: 7 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 5.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ImagingDataCommons/libdicom/releases/download/v1.0.0/libdicom-1.0.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 761c048dfa4cf7d9d577aea97a3eda0e3ff96a77c7e758babc9c6d24b097ab4c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 761c048dfa4cf7d9d577aea97a3eda0e3ff96a77c7e758babc9c6d24b097ab4c Requires -------- libdicom (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libdicom-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libdicom(x86-64) libdicom.so.1()(64bit) libdicom-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libdicom-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdicom.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libdicom-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libdicom-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libdicom: libdicom libdicom(x86-64) libdicom.so.1()(64bit) libdicom-devel: libdicom-devel libdicom-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libdicom) libdicom-doc: libdicom-doc libdicom-tools: libdicom-tools libdicom-tools(x86-64) libdicom-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libdicom-debuginfo libdicom-debuginfo(x86-64) libdicom.so.1.0.0-1.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libdicom-debugsource: libdicom-debugsource libdicom-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2241457 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, Python, Ruby, Java, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) 1.0.1 was released yesterday b) tools package does not have a license file and does not require a package with the license file. c) Consider making documentation available as man pages to avoid bundled fonts and javascript. If html documentation is packaged, may want to symlink to fonts available in Fedora and require those packages. Also if html documentation is packaged, indicated bundled(js-jquery) in the spec file. As the documentation can be built in Fedora, it would be preferable to rebuild it rather than use what is bundled with the release. d) Builds on all architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=107057463 -- 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=2241457 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202241457%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
