https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247789 --- Comment #3 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [ ]: 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [ ]: 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: "ISC License", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License". 568 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2247789-lowdown/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. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/lowdown [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/lowdown [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. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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: Test run failed [ ]: 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 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]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lowdown- libs , lowdown-devel [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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: [!]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: lowdown-1.0.2-2.fc40.aarch64.rpm lowdown-libs-1.0.2-2.fc40.aarch64.rpm lowdown-devel-1.0.2-2.fc40.aarch64.rpm lowdown-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc40.aarch64.rpm lowdown-debugsource-1.0.2-2.fc40.aarch64.rpm lowdown-1.0.2-2.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/tmp99yvli6b')] checks: 31, packages: 6 lowdown.src: W: strange-permission lowdown.spec 600 lowdown-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation lowdown.aarch64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause lowdown.src: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause lowdown-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause lowdown-debugsource.aarch64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause lowdown-devel.aarch64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause lowdown-libs.aarch64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause lowdown.spec:67: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: lowdown-libs-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc40.aarch64.rpm lowdown-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc40.aarch64.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/tmpbbwjm_w4')] checks: 31, packages: 2 lowdown-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause lowdown-libs-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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 lowdown-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation lowdown.aarch64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause lowdown-libs-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause lowdown-debugsource.aarch64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause lowdown-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause lowdown-devel.aarch64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause lowdown-libs.aarch64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-clause 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/kristapsdz/lowdown/archive/VERSION_1_0_2/lowdown-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 049b7883874f8a8e528dc7c4ed7b27cf7ceeb9ecf8fe71c3a8d51d574fddf84b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 049b7883874f8a8e528dc7c4ed7b27cf7ceeb9ecf8fe71c3a8d51d574fddf84b Requires -------- lowdown (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) liblowdown.so.3()(64bit) lowdown-libs(aarch-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) lowdown-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) lowdown-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config liblowdown.so.3()(64bit) lowdown-libs lowdown-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lowdown-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- lowdown: lowdown lowdown(aarch-64) lowdown-libs: liblowdown.so.3()(64bit) lowdown-libs lowdown-libs(aarch-64) lowdown-devel: lowdown-devel lowdown-devel(aarch-64) pkgconfig(lowdown) lowdown-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) lowdown-debuginfo lowdown-debuginfo(aarch-64) lowdown-debugsource: lowdown-debugsource lowdown-debugsource(aarch-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora/2247789-lowdown/srpm/lowdown.spec 2023-11-03 14:55:39.040886930 +0000 +++ /home/fedora/2247789-lowdown/srpm-unpacked/lowdown.spec 2023-11-03 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -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 = 2; + 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: lowdown Version: 1.0.2 @@ -97,3 +107,7 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Fri Nov 03 2023 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.2-2 +- Link binary dynamically to the libraries + +* Fri Nov 03 2023 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.2-1 +- Initial packaging Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2247789 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, R, Perl, PHP, Python, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Use BSD-3-Clause for the license b) Build log contains: ./lowdown: error while loading shared libraries: liblowdown.so.3: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory c) Update license information: MIT License ----------- lowdown-VERSION_1_0_2/libdiff.c lowdown-VERSION_1_0_2/libdiff.h d) Add %dir %_datadir/lowdown to the %files section -- 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=2247789 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202247789%23c3 _______________________________________________ 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
