https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242838 Tim Semeijn <tim@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |tim@xxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Tim Semeijn <tim@xxxxxxx> --- This is an unofficial review as I am not in the packager group yet. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Devel subpackage does not own /usr/include/sqfs - License field does not include licenses of mentioned exceptions. See https://github.com/AgentD/squashfs-tools-ng/blob/master/COPYING.md - Look into rpmlint error: squashfs-tools-ng-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libsquashfs.a - 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 - Dist tag is present. Is there a reason not to use %autorelease macro? ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: 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: [x]: 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later and/or GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "BSD 0-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* BSD 0-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "BSD 2-Clause License", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 95 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /root/2242838-squashfs-tools-ng/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/sqfs [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/sqfs [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. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 36749 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: 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 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: squashfs-tools-ng-static. [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. [-]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: squashfs-tools-ng-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-devel-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-static-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm squashfs-tools-ng-1.2.0-1.fc40.src.rpm =============================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp5en9fkyl')] checks: 31, packages: 6 squashfs-tools-ng-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libsquashfs.a squashfs-tools-ng-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation squashfs-tools-ng-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation squashfs-tools-ng.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libsquashfs.so ================================================ 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.4 s =============================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm =============================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_amceuy6')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s =============================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 5 squashfs-tools-ng-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libsquashfs.a squashfs-tools-ng-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation squashfs-tools-ng-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation squashfs-tools-ng.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libsquashfs.so 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 2.7 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- squashfs-tools-ng: /usr/lib64/libsquashfs.so Source checksums ---------------- https://infraroot.at/pub/squashfs/squashfs-tools-ng-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6402a2844a5bad638e87462423cd30fd3df8f4e386ae7bbd6e5c32268f5d8b8c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6402a2844a5bad638e87462423cd30fd3df8f4e386ae7bbd6e5c32268f5d8b8c Requires -------- squashfs-tools-ng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) liblz4.so.1()(64bit) liblzma.so.5()(64bit) liblzma.so.5(XZ_5.0)(64bit) liblzo2.so.2()(64bit) libsquashfs.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libzstd.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) squashfs-tools-ng-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config pkgconfig(liblz4) pkgconfig(liblzma) pkgconfig(libzstd) pkgconfig(zlib) squashfs-tools-ng(x86-64) squashfs-tools-ng-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): squashfs-tools-ng-devel(x86-64) squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- squashfs-tools-ng: libsquashfs.so.1()(64bit) squashfs-tools-ng squashfs-tools-ng(x86-64) squashfs-tools-ng-devel: pkgconfig(libsquashfs1) squashfs-tools-ng-devel squashfs-tools-ng-devel(x86-64) squashfs-tools-ng-static: squashfs-tools-ng-static squashfs-tools-ng-static(x86-64) squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libsquashfs.so.1.4.0-1.2.0-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo squashfs-tools-ng-debuginfo(x86-64) squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource: squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource squashfs-tools-ng-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2242838 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, fonts, R, Java, 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=2242838 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202242838%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
