https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246133 --- Comment #12 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_file_permissions - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/remind See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 99 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2246133-remind/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: %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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 244870 bytes in 39 files. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. ===== 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in remind- tools , remind-gui [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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: remind-04.02.07-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm remind-tools-04.02.07-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm remind-gui-04.02.07-1.fc40.noarch.rpm remind-debuginfo-04.02.07-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm remind-debugsource-04.02.07-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm remind-04.02.07-1.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/tmpia3wla01')] checks: 31, packages: 6 remind-tools.aarch64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/rem2pdf 555 remind.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/remind/COPYRIGHT remind-tools.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/remind-tools/contrib/remind-conf-mode/remind-conf-mode.el remind-tools.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/remind-tools/COPYRIGHT remind-gui.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcllib 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 0 warnings, 5 badness; has taken 1.1 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: remind-debuginfo-04.02.07-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm remind-tools-debuginfo-04.02.07-1.fc40.aarch64.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/tmpyoyv02ne')] checks: 31, packages: 2 2 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/python3.12/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 remind-tools.aarch64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/rem2ps /lib64/libm.so.6 remind-tools.aarch64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/rem2pdf 555 remind.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/remind/COPYRIGHT remind-tools.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/remind-tools/contrib/remind-conf-mode/remind-conf-mode.el remind-tools.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/remind-tools/COPYRIGHT remind-gui.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcllib 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings, 5 badness; has taken 1.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://dianne.skoll.ca/projects/remind//download/remind-04.02.07.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bb69802e2f860c2f9d0fc26b81d1b93641e8426186d8f51abaaea416623257b4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bb69802e2f860c2f9d0fc26b81d1b93641e8426186d8f51abaaea416623257b4 https://dianne.skoll.ca/projects/remind//download/remind-04.02.07.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 03e12d90d99039ccf731be2aeea40634bea9c829d1bace27a8da2be3ce6db190 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 03e12d90d99039ccf731be2aeea40634bea9c829d1bace27a8da2be3ce6db190 Requires -------- remind (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) remind-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libjsonparser.so.1.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) perl(Cairo) perl(Encode) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(JSON::MaybeXS) perl(Pango) perl(Remind::PDF) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry) perl(base) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(warnings) perl-libs rtld(GNU_HASH) remind-gui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh remind tcl tcllib tk remind-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): remind-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- remind: remind remind(aarch-64) remind-tools: perl(Remind::PDF) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::UNKNOWN) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::color) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::html) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::htmlclass) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::moon) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::pango) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::postscript) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::psfile) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::shade) perl(Remind::PDF::Entry::week) perl(Remind::PDF::Multi) remind-tools remind-tools(aarch-64) remind-gui: remind-gui tkremind remind-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) remind-debuginfo remind-debuginfo(aarch-64) remind-debugsource: remind-debugsource remind-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2246133 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Perl, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, Python, R, fonts, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Warning about name already existing is ok since want to unretire the package b) Software in %{_bindir} typically has permissions 755 c) Upstream may consider using the address at: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt d) Should the gui package have a desktop file? e) May want to replace Requires: %{name} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} with Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} -- 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=2246133 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246133%23c12 _______________________________________________ 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
