https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2237768 --- Comment #5 from Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I am sorry, I overlooked one point before: [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/golly/Rules -devel fills /usr/share/golly/Rules, but depends on the main package, which only recommends the -data package, which could finally lead to a not owned directory. "%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/Rules" in the -devel package could be a practical solution (or add a dependency in -devel to -data as an alternative). Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "The Perl 5 License", "zlib License The Unlicense", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0", "*No copyright* Public domain", "zlib License". 1186 files have unknown license -> Files with other licenses as mentioned in the spec file do not seem to end up in the binary package(s), just build-time and/or unused. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/golly/Rules [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. [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. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Perl: [-]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) missing? ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golly- data, golly-devel -> %{?_isa} is not possible due to (correct) noarch [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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: 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: golly-4.2-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm golly-data-4.2-2.fc38.noarch.rpm golly-devel-4.2-2.fc38.noarch.rpm golly-debuginfo-4.2-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm golly-debugsource-4.2-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm golly-4.2-2.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/tmprp9e1_7q')] checks: 31, packages: 6 golly.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bgolly golly.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary golly golly-data.noarch: W: no-documentation golly-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation golly-data.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/golly-data/lex.htm /usr/share/golly/Help/Lexicon/lex.htm 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: golly-debuginfo-4.2-2.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/tmpmpqgk0a5')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 5 golly.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bgolly golly.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary golly golly-data.noarch: W: no-documentation golly-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation golly-data.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/golly-data/lex.htm /usr/share/golly/Help/Lexicon/lex.htm 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Source checksums ---------------- https://downloads.sourceforge.net/golly/golly-4.2-src.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 569128a923da64c3ff0062186406e4e51fdff02aeabf1f292983753bd065e95d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 569128a923da64c3ff0062186406e4e51fdff02aeabf1f292983753bd065e95d Requires -------- golly (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libGL.so.1()(64bit) libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) liblua-5.4.so()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_baseu_net-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu_net-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_core-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_gl-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_gl-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_html-3.2.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk3u_html-3.2.so.0(WXU_3.2)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.3.3)(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) golly-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golly golly-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golly golly-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): golly-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- golly: application() application(golly.desktop) golly golly(x86-64) golly-data: golly-data golly-devel: golly-devel golly-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) golly-debuginfo golly-debuginfo(x86-64) golly-debugsource: golly-debugsource golly-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name golly --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Perl, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Python, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=2237768 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202237768%23c5 _______________________________________________ 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
