https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253354 --- Comment #4 from Lyes Saadi <fedora@xxxxxxx> --- Damn, that was a heck of a package review :D. All my observations are in the Notes section. My thoughts on the Obsoletes situation is that the previous asl package was retired in Fedora 35, which isn't that long ago, and since lots of people do not reinstall Fedora, some might have the old asl package, and having it be replaced with the new asl wouldn't be desirable. If Obsoletes actually do what I understand from the documentation which is preventing that upgrade, it would be desirable to have that. But, the way Obsoletes works is confusing and it seems to have different behavior in RPM and DNF. So, some testing is still needed, I'll try to do it in a COPR this night to make sure to have a definitive answer and get back to you. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Notes: ====== MUST: - There is a conflict between `asl-devel` and `mp-devel` that needs to be solved. Probably by having mp depend on asl since they seem to be bundling the files in question. BUT, I have just seen that it seems to be work in progress (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mp/pull-request/2) ! - We should figure out the Obsoletes situation, I'll do some tests on COPR before to see how Obsoletes work with dnf and then get back to you. SHOULD: - Ask Upstream to put also provide a seperate SMLNJ license file. - Upstream patches, but the work seems to have already been started. Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/asl See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: 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: [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: the LGPL files are not found in the Binary package, only the BSD and SMLNJ licenses are. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Standard ML of New Jersey License", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License". 598 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/home/lyes/Documents/reviews/2253354-asl/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/asl(mp-devel) Note: See conflicts. [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. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: `asl-devel` conflicts with `mp-devel` on some headers. They are probably the ones who need to change their headers, please get in contact with them. [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]: 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 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 1461 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. Note: No seperate SMLNJ license file. [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. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Note: not all patches are upstreamed yet, but that seems to be on track. [-]: 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. [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: [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: asl-20231111-1.20231117git2473f4e.fc40.x86_64.rpm asl-devel-20231111-1.20231117git2473f4e.fc40.x86_64.rpm asl-debuginfo-20231111-1.20231117git2473f4e.fc40.x86_64.rpm asl-debugsource-20231111-1.20231117git2473f4e.fc40.x86_64.rpm asl-20231111-1.20231117git2473f4e.fc40.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpg78u4xjt')] checks: 32, packages: 5 asl.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: %{name}-shared.patch asl.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: %{name}-arch-flags.patch asl.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: %{name}-weak.patch asl.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch3: %{name}-fenv.patch asl.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch4: %{name}-prototype.patch asl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation asl-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 350233 asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/arith.h /usr/include/asl/arith.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/asl_pfg.h /usr/include/asl/asl_pfg.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/asl_pfgh.h /usr/include/asl/asl_pfgh.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/avltree.h /usr/include/asl/avltree.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/errchk.h /usr/include/asl/errchk.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/funcadd.h /usr/include/asl/funcadd.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/getstub.h /usr/include/asl/getstub.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/jac2dim.h /usr/include/asl/jac2dim.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/obj_adj.h /usr/include/asl/obj_adj.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/opcode.hd /usr/include/asl/opcode.hd asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/r_opn.hd /usr/include/asl/r_opn.hd asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/stdio1.h /usr/include/asl/stdio1.h 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 18 warnings, 100 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.9 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: asl-debuginfo-20231111-1.20231117git2473f4e.fc40.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpc4aphfy0')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 18 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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: 4 asl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation asl-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 350233 asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/arith.h /usr/include/asl/arith.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/asl_pfg.h /usr/include/asl/asl_pfg.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/asl_pfgh.h /usr/include/asl/asl_pfgh.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/avltree.h /usr/include/asl/avltree.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/errchk.h /usr/include/asl/errchk.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/funcadd.h /usr/include/asl/funcadd.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/getstub.h /usr/include/asl/getstub.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/jac2dim.h /usr/include/asl/jac2dim.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/obj_adj.h /usr/include/asl/obj_adj.h asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/opcode.hd /usr/include/asl/opcode.hd asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/r_opn.hd /usr/include/asl/r_opn.hd asl-devel.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/include/asl2/stdio1.h /usr/include/asl/stdio1.h 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings, 101 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ampl/asl/archive/2473f4e3906d5028f3632d518280c190ae131a10/asl-2473f4e3906d5028f3632d518280c190ae131a10.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e17ed64665477beff62a9d25edd5eebf889383a586fbe39f4d4294528d1e2ec6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e17ed64665477beff62a9d25edd5eebf889383a586fbe39f4d4294528d1e2ec6 Requires -------- asl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libasl.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) asl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): asl(x86-64) cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libasl-mt.so.0()(64bit) libasl.so.0()(64bit) libasl2-mt.so.0()(64bit) libasl2.so.0()(64bit) libaslcpp.so.0()(64bit) asl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): asl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- asl: asl asl(x86-64) libasl-mt.so.0()(64bit) libasl.so.0()(64bit) libasl2-mt.so.0()(64bit) libasl2.so.0()(64bit) libaslcpp.so.0()(64bit) asl-devel: asl-devel asl-devel(x86-64) cmake(ampl-asl) asl-debuginfo: asl-debuginfo asl-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libasl-mt.so.0.0.0-20231111-1.20231117git2473f4e.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libasl.so.0.0.0-20231111-1.20231117git2473f4e.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libasl2-mt.so.0.0.0-20231111-1.20231117git2473f4e.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libasl2.so.0.0.0-20231111-1.20231117git2473f4e.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libaslcpp.so.0.0.0-20231111-1.20231117git2473f4e.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) asl-debugsource: asl-debugsource asl-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2253354 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, R, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, PHP, 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=2253354 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202253354%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ 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
