https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2252353 --- Comment #7 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The python3-libmambapy package is missing Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - Note the rpmlint non-conffile-in-etc warnings. Should those files be marked %config(noreplace)? - Note the rpmlint no-manual-page-for-binary warning. Is there a way to generate a man page, say with help2man? - I would encourage you to use %autorelease and %autochangelog, like the other packages I have reviewed for you today. (This is not a MUST, though.) ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. [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. 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License". 209 files have unknown license. Files with other licenses are not included in the binary RPMs. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/profile.d That directory is owned by the setup package, which will be present in all Fedora installations. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/fish/vendor_conf.d(fish, snapd, nano-default-editor, vim- default-editor, environment-modules, Lmod, flatpak) I think this is fine. It's the best you can do without requiring the fish package, which would be undesirable. Perhaps that directory should be owned by the filesystem package. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 164038 bytes in 4 files. [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 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 Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== 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 python3-libmambapy [?]: 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. [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: [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libmamba-1.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libmamba-devel-1.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm micromamba-1.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm python3-libmambapy-1.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libmamba-debuginfo-1.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libmamba-debugsource-1.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libmamba-1.5.3-1.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/tmpflj2jlm4')] checks: 31, packages: 7 micromamba.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/micromamba.csh micromamba.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/micromamba.sh micromamba.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary micromamba micromamba.x86_64: W: no-documentation ================= 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 s ================= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libmamba-debuginfo-1.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.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/tmpalfbd1i7')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 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: 6 libmamba.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('depsolving', 'Summary(en_US) depsolving -> dissolving, devolving') libmamba.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('reimplementation', '%description -l en_US reimplementation -> re implementation, re-implementation, implementation') libmamba.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('conda', '%description -l en_US conda -> coda, condo, conga') libmamba.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libsolv', '%description -l en_US libsolv -> absolve') micromamba.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/micromamba.csh micromamba.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/micromamba.sh micromamba.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary micromamba micromamba.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings, 39 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.8 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-libmambapy: /usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/libmambapy/bindings.cpython-312-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mamba-org/mamba/archive/libmamba-1.5.3/libmamba-1.5.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f0b41dfcca80b66f80b9314a0584f32c3785df6d7339a1e6dffac603c651e082 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f0b41dfcca80b66f80b9314a0584f32c3785df6d7339a1e6dffac603c651e082 Requires -------- libmamba (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libarchive.so.13()(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libfmt.so.10()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libreproc++.so.14()(64bit) libreproc.so.14()(64bit) libsolv.so.1()(64bit) libsolv.so.1(SOLV_1.0)(64bit) libsolv.so.1(SOLV_1.2)(64bit) libsolv.so.1(SOLV_1.3)(64bit) libsolvext.so.1()(64bit) libsolvext.so.1(SOLV_1.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libyaml-cpp.so.0.7()(64bit) libzstd.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmamba-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake(tl-expected) cmake-filesystem cmake-filesystem(x86-64) fmt-devel(x86-64) json-devel(x86-64) libmamba(x86-64) libmamba.so.2()(64bit) libsolv-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig reproc-devel(x86-64) spdlog-devel(x86-64) yaml-cpp-devel(x86-64) micromamba (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfmt.so.10()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libmamba(x86-64) libmamba.so.2()(64bit) libreproc++.so.14()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libyaml-cpp.so.0.7()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) python3-libmambapy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libfmt.so.10()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libmamba.so.2()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmamba-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmamba-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libmamba: libmamba libmamba(x86-64) libmamba.so.2()(64bit) libmamba-devel: cmake(libmamba) libmamba-devel libmamba-devel(x86-64) micromamba: micromamba micromamba(x86-64) python3-libmambapy: python-libmambapy python3-libmambapy python3-libmambapy(x86-64) python3.12-libmambapy python3.12dist(libmambapy) python3dist(libmambapy) libmamba-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libmamba-debuginfo libmamba-debuginfo(x86-64) libmamba.so.2.0.0-1.5.3-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libmamba-debugsource: libmamba-debugsource libmamba-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2252353 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, R, Perl, SugarActivity, Ruby, Ocaml, Haskell, 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=2252353 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202252353%23c7 -- _______________________________________________ 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
