https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2251826 --- Comment #2 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file gnome-mime-text-x-copying.png is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bluecurve-icon-theme See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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. [ ]: 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", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License [generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 2747 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2251826-bluecurve-icon- theme/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/16x16(fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/16x16/apps(fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/24x24(fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/24x24/apps(fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/32x32(fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/32x32/apps(fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/36x36(fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/36x36/apps(fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/48x48(fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/48x48/apps(fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/96x96(fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/96x96/apps(fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve(fedora-logos) [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: 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 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 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 128 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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 bluecurve-cursor-theme [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: bluecurve-icon-theme-8.0.2-28.fc40.noarch.rpm bluecurve-cursor-theme-8.0.2-28.fc40.noarch.rpm bluecurve-icon-theme-8.0.2-28.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/tmpqxh9yicz')] checks: 31, packages: 3 bluecurve-icon-theme.spec:47: W: macro-in-comment %find_lang bluecurve-icon-theme.spec:47: W: macro-in-comment %{name} bluecurve-icon-theme.spec:47: W: macro-in-comment %{name} bluecurve-icon-theme.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: bluecurve-icon-theme-8.0.2.tar.bz2 bluecurve-cursor-theme.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bluecurve-cursor-theme/COPYING bluecurve-icon-theme.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bluecurve-icon-theme/COPYING bluecurve-cursor-theme.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 1387680 bluecurve-icon-theme.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 172532 bluecurve-cursor-theme.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve-inverse/cursors/watch /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve-inverse/cursors/08e8e1c95fe2fc01f976f1e063a24ccd:/usr/share/icons/Bluecurve-inverse/cursors/left_ptr_watch Many other files-duplicate warnings ======================= 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 189 warnings, 4 badness; has taken 2.1 s ====================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 2 bluecurve-cursor-theme.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bluecurve-cursor-theme/COPYING bluecurve-icon-theme.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bluecurve-icon-theme/COPYING bluecurve-cursor-theme.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 1387680 bluecurve-icon-theme.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 172532 bluecurve-cursor-theme.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve-inverse/cursors/watch /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve-inverse/cursors/08e8e1c95fe2fc01f976f1e063a24ccd:/usr/share/icons/Bluecurve-inverse/cursors/left_ptr_watch More files duplicate warnings 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 185 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 2.6 s Requires -------- bluecurve-icon-theme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bluecurve-cursor-theme coreutils system-logos bluecurve-cursor-theme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- bluecurve-icon-theme: bluecurve-icon-theme bluecurve-cursor-theme: bluecurve-cursor-theme Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2251826 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Haskell, Perl, Java, Python, PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Many of the files are linked to their copies, so duplicates warning can be ignored. b) COPYING file is GPL2, should GPL-2.0-or-later be used as the SPDX identifier? c) Directory co-ownership seems ok d) Maybe source files should be put in a pagure/GitLab repository owned by graphics team? -- 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=2251826 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202251826%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
