https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2022555 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- This looks good to me. The current submission incorporates all of the feedback from the previous review. Just make sure that you check the release number upon import so that the package doesn’t Obsolete itself. Approved! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Notes ===== - Make sure you check the release number on import so that the package does not obsolete itself with Obsoletes: lv2-EQ10Q-plugins < 2.2-8 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: 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. Unversioned .so files are plugins located in an appropriate subdirectory: As an additional complication, some software generates unversioned shared objects which are not intended to be used as system libraries. These files are usually plugins or modular functionality specific to an application, and are not located in the ld library paths or cache. This means that they are not located directly in /usr/lib or /usr/lib64, or in a directory listed as a library path in /etc/ld.so.conf (or an /etc/ld.so.conf.d/config file). Usually, these unversioned shared objects can be found in a dedicated subdirectory under /usr/lib or /usr/lib64 (e.g. /usr/lib/purple-2/ is the plugin directory used for libpurple applications). In these cases, the unversioned shared objects do not need to be placed in a -devel package. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages These are packaged correctly, and no change is required. [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. [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", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 49 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2022555-lv2-eq10q/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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]: 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]: 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 2541 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). [?]: 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. [-]: 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. Upstream supplies no tests. [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]: 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: [!]: 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) OK: rpmautospec expansion [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: lv2-eq10q-2.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm lv2-eq10q-debuginfo-2.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm lv2-eq10q-debugsource-2.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm lv2-eq10q-2.2-1.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/tmp91awpldr')] checks: 31, packages: 4 lv2-eq10q.src: W: strange-permission lv2-eq10q.spec 600 lv2-eq10q.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion lv2-EQ10Q-plugins < 2.2-8 obsoletes lv2-EQ10Q-plugins = 2.2-1.fc40 ================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 s ================ Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: lv2-eq10q-debuginfo-2.2-1.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/tmp_tpw_2nx')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 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: 3 lv2-eq10q.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion lv2-EQ10Q-plugins < 2.2-8 obsoletes lv2-EQ10Q-plugins = 2.2-1.fc40 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 7.2 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/bassup.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/compressor.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/compressor_sc.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/compressor_stereo.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/compressor_stereo_sc.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq10qm.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq10qs.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq1qm.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq1qs.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq4qm.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq4qs.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq6qm.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/eq6qs.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/gate.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/gate_stereo.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/gui/bassup_gui.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/gui/dynamics_gui.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/gui/eq10q_gui.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/gui/matrix_ms_gui.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/matrix_lr2ms.so lv2-eq10q: /usr/lib64/lv2/sapistaEQv2.lv2/matrix_ms2lr.so Source checksums ---------------- https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/eq10q/eq10q-2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 337f4c703ba31902565faad1cd450cf0312ad5a48dc499661277f287b662b09a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 337f4c703ba31902565faad1cd450cf0312ad5a48dc499661277f287b662b09a Requires -------- lv2-eq10q (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libatkmm-1.6.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairomm-1.0.so.1()(64bit) libfftw3.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgdkmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libglibmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libgtkmm-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpangomm-1.4.so.1()(64bit) libsigc-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) lv2(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) lv2-eq10q-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lv2-eq10q-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- lv2-eq10q: lv2-EQ10Q-plugins lv2-eq10q lv2-eq10q(x86-64) lv2-eq10q-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) lv2-eq10q-debuginfo lv2-eq10q-debuginfo(x86-64) lv2-eq10q-debugsource: lv2-eq10q-debugsource lv2-eq10q-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/Downloads/review/2022555-lv2-eq10q/srpm/lv2-eq10q.spec 2023-10-22 19:11:28.177668688 -0400 +++ /home/ben/Downloads/review/2022555-lv2-eq10q/srpm-unpacked/lv2-eq10q.spec 2023-10-16 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 + Name: lv2-eq10q Version: 2.2 @@ -71,3 +81,4 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Tue Oct 17 2023 Nils Philippsen <nils@xxxxxxxxx> - 2.2-1 +- Uncommitted changes Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2022555 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, Python, R, Perl, SugarActivity 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=2022555 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202022555%23c15 _______________________________________________ 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
