[Bug 2149430] Review Request: syndication-domination - A simple RSS/Atom parser library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149430



--- Comment #15 from Michael Catanzaro <mcatanza@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
I really like Fedora Review Service. That is a nice improvement.

I see two problems here:

 * I will contact upstream to request clarification regarding the license. You
were right to specify AGPL-3.0-only in the absence of any information stating
that a later version may be used, but because this is a strange choice, I
wonder if AGPL-3.0-or-later was intended.
 * The -debuginfo subpackage is still missing. Not sure how that could happen.
This seems wrong because the package installs a shared object written in C++. I
see the -debugsource is generated properly.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     mcatanzaro note: this project does not appear to use gnulib at all. Not
sure why fedora-review is mentioning this.
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     mcatanzaro note:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/syndom.cpython-312-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
exists, seems fine
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
     mcatanzaro note: So there is a problem here. I think upstream may have
     messed up. It would be unusual to specify AGPL-3.0-only as the license.
     Gabmus might have wanted AGPL-3.0-or-later. I will contact him. This is
     a pass anyway, though, because it's fine for Fedora either way.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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.
     mcatanzaro note: It uses %autochangelog
[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.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
     mcatanzaro note: -debuginfo is still missing despite the C++ sources.
     Something is wrong.
[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: Documentation size is 10373 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[?]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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-syndom
     mcatanzaro note: That's OK because there is no other package here
[?]: Package functions as described.
[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.
[?]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
[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.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-syndom-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          syndication-domination-debugsource-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          syndication-domination-1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpqb08c2gm')]
checks: 31, packages: 3

 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.2 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "syndication-domination-debugsource".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-syndom".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ 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

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-syndom:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/syndom.cpython-312-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://gitlab.com/gabmus/syndication-domination/-/archive/1.0/syndication-domination-1.0.tar.bz2
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
74b32fbe7625b575cc8da1e0eeee06c4546ee721041ce4965985f76b5bcf2b22
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
74b32fbe7625b575cc8da1e0eeee06c4546ee721041ce4965985f76b5bcf2b22


Requires
--------
python3-syndom (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)
    libpugixml.so.1()(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)
    libtidy.so.58()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

syndication-domination-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python3-syndom:
    python-syndom
    python3-syndom
    python3-syndom(x86-64)
    python3.12-syndom

syndication-domination-debugsource:
    syndication-domination-debugsource
    syndication-domination-debugsource(x86-64)


-- 
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=2149430

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202149430%23c15
--
_______________________________________________
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux