https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235085 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #4 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD 3-Clause'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 There is a hyphen missing between BSD and 3. - In any case, the license in __init__.py, the only file that seems to matter, is BSD-2-Clause, not BSD-3-Clause. - Upstream packs a bunch of license files into the dist-info. Since only the bsd-simplified.LICENSE file is relevant, is it worth the effort to prevent the other license files from being installed? Note that public-domain.LICENSE is empty, so we probably don't want it in any case. - This package does not have an ExcludeArch tag. The code in __init__.py only looks for libmagic.so in /usr/lib64, which will fail on 32-bit x86. - The README.rst file is installed in both the dist-info directory (with the executable bits stripped off) and in /usr/share/doc (with the executable bits still on). We probably don't need it in both places. If you choose to have it in /usr/share/doc, please remove the executable bits. ===== MUST items ===== 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* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 4-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v1.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "*No copyright* ISC License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2235085-python-typecode-libmagic/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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 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 236 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== 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). [?]: 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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-typecode-libmagic-21.5.31-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-typecode-libmagic-21.5.31-1.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/tmp_59h7i9p')] checks: 31, packages: 2 python3-typecode-libmagic.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/typecode_libmagic_system_provided-5.39.210531.dist-info/public-domain.LICENSE python3-typecode-libmagic.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python3-typecode-libmagic/README.rst python-typecode-libmagic.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: typecode-libmagic-21.5.31.tar.gz python-typecode-libmagic.src: W: invalid-license BSD 3-Clause python3-typecode-libmagic.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD 3-Clause python3-typecode-libmagic.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/typecode_libmagic_system_provided-5.39.210531.dist-info/gpl-1.0-plus.LICENSE python3-typecode-libmagic.noarch: E: devel-dependency file-devel ================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 3 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: 1 python3-typecode-libmagic.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/typecode_libmagic_system_provided-5.39.210531.dist-info/public-domain.LICENSE python3-typecode-libmagic.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python3-typecode-libmagic/README.rst python3-typecode-libmagic.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD 3-Clause python3-typecode-libmagic.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/typecode_libmagic_system_provided-5.39.210531.dist-info/gpl-1.0-plus.LICENSE python3-typecode-libmagic.noarch: E: devel-dependency file-devel 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 0.0 s Requires -------- python3-typecode-libmagic (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): file-devel python(abi) Provides -------- python3-typecode-libmagic: python-typecode-libmagic python3-typecode-libmagic python3.12-typecode-libmagic python3.12dist(typecode-libmagic-system-provided) python3dist(typecode-libmagic-system-provided) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235085 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-eclipseo Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, Haskell, Ruby, SugarActivity, PHP, R, fonts, Perl, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235085 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202235085%23c4 _______________________________________________ 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
