https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242904 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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: Cannot run licensecheck: Command 'licensecheck -r /var/lib/mock/fedora- rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/crunch-3.3.1' returned non- zero exit status 255. I checked the sources by hand. [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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Ocaml: [x]: This should never happen ===== 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. I did not test it. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. No signatures that I can find upstream. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. The tests are skipped because of missing deps, as noted in the spec file. [-]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint The mock build failed because this packages depends on ocaml-ptime. We'll find out if it builds when we add it to Fedora, but the package is trivially simple so there seems like there should be no problem. [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. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 5.0 starting (python version = 3.12.0, NVR = mock-5.0-1.fc40)... Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Mock Version: 5.0 INFO: Mock Version: 5.0 Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: Package manager dnf detected and used (fallback) Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin INFO: Package manager dnf detected and used (direct choice) Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/ocaml-crunch-debugsource-3.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ocaml-crunch-3.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ocaml-crunch-devel-3.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ocaml-crunch-debuginfo-3.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M b4fed57175f4424bac20f56957a038d0 -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.77ejnjvv:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf-3 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 40 --setopt=deltarpm=False --setopt=allow_vendor_change=yes --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /builddir/ocaml-crunch-debugsource-3.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ocaml-crunch-3.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ocaml-crunch-devel-3.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm /builddir/ocaml-crunch-debuginfo-3.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: ocaml-crunch-3.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ocaml-crunch-devel-3.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ocaml-crunch-debuginfo-3.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ocaml-crunch-debugsource-3.3.1-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ocaml-crunch-3.3.1-1.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/tmp7ytq7pc3')] checks: 31, packages: 5 ocaml-crunch-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/crunch/crunch.a ocaml-crunch.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib64/ocaml/crunch/crunch.cmxs ocaml-crunch.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ocaml-crunch ocaml-crunch.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-crunch-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-crunch.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/ocaml-crunch 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mirage/ocaml-crunch/releases/download/v3.3.1/crunch-3.3.1.tbz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2c5ba0d4110bcbb7731cba4eafb6c44a7487c3f88c1ad47401271b69ffa8ed6a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2c5ba0d4110bcbb7731cba4eafb6c44a7487c3f88c1ad47401271b69ffa8ed6a Requires -------- ocaml-crunch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libzstd.so.1()(64bit) ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(Ptime) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__Array) ocaml(Stdlib__Bigarray) ocaml(Stdlib__Buffer) ocaml(Stdlib__Complex) ocaml(Stdlib__Digest) ocaml(Stdlib__Domain) ocaml(Stdlib__Either) ocaml(Stdlib__Filename) ocaml(Stdlib__Format) ocaml(Stdlib__List) ocaml(Stdlib__Map) ocaml(Stdlib__Printf) ocaml(Stdlib__Seq) ocaml(Stdlib__String) ocaml(Stdlib__Sys) ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar) ocaml(Unix) rtld(GNU_HASH) ocaml-crunch-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(Ptime) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__Array) ocaml(Stdlib__Bigarray) ocaml(Stdlib__Buffer) ocaml(Stdlib__Complex) ocaml(Stdlib__Digest) ocaml(Stdlib__Domain) ocaml(Stdlib__Either) ocaml(Stdlib__Filename) ocaml(Stdlib__Format) ocaml(Stdlib__List) ocaml(Stdlib__Map) ocaml(Stdlib__Printf) ocaml(Stdlib__Seq) ocaml(Stdlib__String) ocaml(Stdlib__Sys) ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar) ocaml(Unix) ocaml-crunch(x86-64) ocaml-ptime-devel(x86-64) ocamlx(CamlinternalFormat) ocamlx(Ptime) ocamlx(Stdlib) ocamlx(Stdlib__Buffer) ocamlx(Stdlib__Bytes) ocamlx(Stdlib__Digest) ocamlx(Stdlib__Filename) ocamlx(Stdlib__List) ocamlx(Stdlib__Map) ocamlx(Stdlib__Printf) ocamlx(Stdlib__String) ocamlx(Stdlib__Sys) ocamlx(Unix) ocaml-crunch-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml-crunch-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- ocaml-crunch: ocaml(Crunch) ocaml-crunch ocaml-crunch(x86-64) ocaml-crunch-devel: ocaml(Crunch) ocaml-crunch-devel ocaml-crunch-devel(x86-64) ocamlx(Crunch) ocaml-crunch-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) ocaml-crunch-debuginfo ocaml-crunch-debuginfo(x86-64) ocaml-crunch-debugsource: ocaml-crunch-debugsource ocaml-crunch-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2242904 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api, Ocaml Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, fonts, Perl, PHP, Java 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=2242904 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202242904%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ 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
