https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247020 --- Comment #11 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #10) > > Issues: > ======= > - 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 speakersafetyd > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets > This is already addressed in the spec, just not in the SRPM, so I'll give this a pass. > > ===== 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. > [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". 28 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2247020-rust- > speakersafetyd/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev, > /usr/lib/udev/rules.d This can be fixed by adding "Requires: systemd-udev" to the spec. > [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. > [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]: 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 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 893 bytes in 1 files. > [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). > [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > speakersafetyd > [x]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [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. > [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]: 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: > [!]: 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]: 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. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: speakersafetyd-0.1.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm > rust-speakersafetyd-debugsource-0.1.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm > rust-speakersafetyd-0.1.4-1.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/tmpa8swegmx')] > checks: 31, packages: 3 > > rust-speakersafetyd.src: W: strange-permission rust-speakersafetyd.spec 600 > speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary speakersafetyd > speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j475.conf > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j274.conf:/usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/ > j375.conf:/usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j473.conf:/usr/share/ > speakersafetyd/apple/j474.conf > speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j493.conf > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j293.conf > speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j414.conf > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j314.conf > speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j416.conf > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j316.conf > speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j457.conf > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j456.conf > =========================================================== 3 packages and 0 > specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 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: 2 > > speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary speakersafetyd > speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j475.conf > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j274.conf:/usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/ > j375.conf:/usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j473.conf:/usr/share/ > speakersafetyd/apple/j474.conf > speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j493.conf > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j293.conf > speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j414.conf > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j314.conf > speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j416.conf > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j316.conf > speakersafetyd.x86_64: W: files-duplicate > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j457.conf > /usr/share/speakersafetyd/apple/j456.conf > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has > taken 0.1 s > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/speakersafetyd/0.1.4/download#/ > speakersafetyd-0.1.4.crate : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > a73f3b9d33d65d56eb822cab4897b97220bc5ced68d69e11323b2baa3e1e7fa3 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > a73f3b9d33d65d56eb822cab4897b97220bc5ced68d69e11323b2baa3e1e7fa3 > > > Requires > -------- > speakersafetyd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) > libasound.so.2()(64bit) > libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) > libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(64bit) > libc.so.6()(64bit) > libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) > libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) > libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) > libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) > libm.so.6()(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > rust-speakersafetyd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > > > Provides > -------- > speakersafetyd: > speakersafetyd > speakersafetyd(x86-64) > > rust-speakersafetyd-debugsource: > rust-speakersafetyd-debugsource > rust-speakersafetyd-debugsource(x86-64) > > > > Diff spec file in url and in SRPM > --------------------------------- > --- /home/ngompa/2247020-rust-speakersafetyd/srpm/rust-speakersafetyd.spec > 2023-10-31 07:01:21.451171118 -0400 > +++ > /home/ngompa/2247020-rust-speakersafetyd/srpm-unpacked/rust-speakersafetyd. > spec 2023-10-29 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 > @@ -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 = 1; > + 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 > + > # Generated by rust2rpm 24 > %bcond_without check > @@ -62,13 +72,14 @@ > %endif > > -%post -n %{crate} > +%post > %systemd_post speakersafetyd.service > > -%preun -n %{crate} > +%preun > %systemd_preun speakersafetyd.service > > -%postun -n %{crate} > +%postun > %systemd_postun_with_restart speakersafetyd.service > As mentioned earlier, this is actually fixed in the spec, just not in the SRPM. -- 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=2247020 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202247020%23c11 _______________________________________________ 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
