https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228155 --- Comment #28 from Steve Cossette <farchord@xxxxxxxxx> --- All good, except for one last thing: Please make the package owns %{_libdir}/dante/ Then I'll go ahead and approve this. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/dante [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/dante [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. [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. [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: Test run failed [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [-]: %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]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros 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/tmp99o9bv6g')] checks: 31, packages: 6 dante-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 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-server.x86_64: W: empty-%postun dante.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/dante/libdsocks.so dante.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/lib64/dante/libsocks.so.0.1.1 dante-server.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/sbin/sockd 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dante-server-debuginfo-1.4.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm dante-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/tmpc6b5nwlx')] 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) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "dante-server-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "dante-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "dante". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "dante-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "dante-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "dante-server". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- dante: /usr/lib64/dante/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(x86-64) libc.so.6()(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(x86-64) 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 --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name dante --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Python, Ocaml, PHP, Java, Perl 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%23c28 _______________________________________________ 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
