https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241003 Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) | --- Comment #5 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - Dist tag is present. - 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/ ===== 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]: 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]: 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", "Apache License 2.0". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2241003-qnearbyshare/licensecheck.txt [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/dbus-1/services, /usr/share/dbus-1 [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. [-]: 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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 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]: 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). [ ]: 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. [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]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [!]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 5.2 starting (python version = 3.11.5, NVR = mock-5.2-1.fc38), args: /usr/libexec/mock/mock -r fedora-rawhide-aarch64 --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --resultdir=/home/fedora/2241003-qnearbyshare/results install /home/fedora/2241003-qnearbyshare/results/qnearbyshare-debuginfo-0-2.20230928git90621de.fc40.aarch64.rpm /home/fedora/2241003-qnearbyshare/results/qnearbyshare-debugsource-0-2.20230928git90621de.fc40.aarch64.rpm /home/fedora/2241003-qnearbyshare/results/qnearbyshare-0-2.20230928git90621de.fc40.aarch64.rpm Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Mock Version: 5.2 INFO: Mock Version: 5.2 Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: Package manager dnf detected and used (fallback) Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin INFO: Package manager dnf detected and used (direct choice) Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/qnearbyshare-debuginfo-0-2.20230928git90621de.fc40.aarch64.rpm /builddir/qnearbyshare-debugsource-0-2.20230928git90621de.fc40.aarch64.rpm /builddir/qnearbyshare-0-2.20230928git90621de.fc40.aarch64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 10e4df7078484628af0c68ef3da6104d -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-aarch64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.tcq7jwci:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf-3 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/root/ --releasever 40 --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /builddir/qnearbyshare-debuginfo-0-2.20230928git90621de.fc40.aarch64.rpm /builddir/qnearbyshare-debugsource-0-2.20230928git90621de.fc40.aarch64.rpm /builddir/qnearbyshare-0-2.20230928git90621de.fc40.aarch64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: qnearbyshare-0-2.20230928git90621de.fc40.aarch64.rpm qnearbyshare-debuginfo-0-2.20230928git90621de.fc40.aarch64.rpm qnearbyshare-debugsource-0-2.20230928git90621de.fc40.aarch64.rpm qnearbyshare-0-2.20230928git90621de.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/tmp1rwu0apg')] checks: 31, packages: 4 qnearbyshare.src: W: strange-permission qnearbyshare.spec 600 qnearbyshare.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qnearbyshare-receive qnearbyshare.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qnearbyshare-send qnearbyshare.aarch64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-2 ['0-2.20230928git90621de.fc40', '0-2.20230928git90621de'] 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/vicr123/QNearbyShare/archive/90621de47f76d3d57f3a4a1eb45aae8de49e33db/QNearbyShare-90621de47f76d3d57f3a4a1eb45aae8de49e33db.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ccb69560dc250b4a465262b23990c72a46dd6a5d3adb82a58e57477cf7e91271 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ccb69560dc250b4a465262b23990c72a46dd6a5d3adb82a58e57477cf7e91271 Requires -------- qnearbyshare (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.5)(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6()(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQtZeroConf.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcryptopp.so.8()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libprotobuf.so.30()(64bit) libqnearbyshared-proto.so()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) qnearbyshare-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): qnearbyshare-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- qnearbyshare: qnearbyshare qnearbyshare(aarch-64) qnearbyshare-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) qnearbyshare-debuginfo qnearbyshare-debuginfo(aarch-64) qnearbyshare-debugsource: qnearbyshare-debugsource qnearbyshare-debugsource(aarch-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora/2241003-qnearbyshare/srpm/qnearbyshare.spec 2023-10-06 18:44:19.671972445 +0000 +++ /home/fedora/2241003-qnearbyshare/srpm-unpacked/qnearbyshare.spec 2023-09-28 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global forgeurl https://github.com/vicr123/QNearbyShare %global commit 90621de47f76d3d57f3a4a1eb45aae8de49e33db @@ -57,4 +67,7 @@ %changelog -%{autochangelog} +* Thu Sep 28 2023 Zephyr Lykos <git@xxxxxxxxx> - 0-2 +- Uncommitted changes +* Wed Sep 27 2023 Zephyr Lykos <git@xxxxxxxxx> - 0-1 +- Initial packaging Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2241003 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, fonts, PHP, Python, R, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) OpenSSL warning seems false. OpenSSL is primarily used for tests. A number of OpenSSL headers are used in libqnearbyshare-server/nearbyshare/cryptography.h:#include <openssl/evp.h> libqnearbyshare-server/nearbyshare/nearbysocket.cpp:#include <openssl/ec.h> libqnearbyshare-server/nearbyshare/nearbysocket.cpp:#include <openssl/evp.h> b) Should it require one of the dbus packages? c) Should Apache 2 license also be distributed with the software? d) Should it require avahi? e) Should qnearbyshared be placed in bin rather than libexec? f) qnearbyshared.so seems to require ibqnearbyshared-proto.so and at present this is not available. -- 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=2241003 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202241003%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
