https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253360 --- Comment #6 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [!]: 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 Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "Apache License 2.0", "Boost Software License 1.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 132 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2253360-papilo/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 46255 bytes in 3 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 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: [-]: 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 libpapilo [ ]: 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: papilo-2.1.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libpapilo-2.1.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm libpapilo-devel-2.1.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm papilo-debuginfo-2.1.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm papilo-debugsource-2.1.4-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm papilo-2.1.4-1.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/tmpzdtiemx4')] checks: 32, packages: 6 libpapilo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('presolve', '%description -l en_US presolve -> resolve, p resolve, preserve') libpapilo-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('presolve', '%description -l en_US presolve -> resolve, p resolve, preserve') papilo.src: E: spelling-error ('presolve', 'Summary(en_US) presolve -> resolve, p resolve, preserve') papilo.src: E: spelling-error ('presolve', '%description -l en_US presolve -> resolve, p resolve, preserve') papilo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('presolve', 'Summary(en_US) presolve -> resolve, p resolve, preserve') papilo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('presolve', '%description -l en_US presolve -> resolve, p resolve, preserve') papilo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary duplicates papilo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary papilo 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 2 warnings, 42 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 1.7 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: papilo-debuginfo-2.1.4-1.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/tmpd_0zqlt4')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 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: 5 libpapilo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('presolve', '%description -l en_US presolve -> resolve, p resolve, preserve') papilo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('presolve', 'Summary(en_US) presolve -> resolve, p resolve, preserve') papilo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('presolve', '%description -l en_US presolve -> resolve, p resolve, preserve') libpapilo-devel.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('presolve', '%description -l en_US presolve -> resolve, p resolve, preserve') papilo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary duplicates papilo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary papilo 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 39 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/scipopt/papilo//archive/v2.1.4/papilo-2.1.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3526f3f9a6036c4b51f324f24535b5ee63e26cbc5d3f893a765cbc9cd721fac9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3526f3f9a6036c4b51f324f24535b5ee63e26cbc5d3f893a765cbc9cd721fac9 Requires -------- papilo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libboost_iostreams.so.1.83.0()(64bit) libboost_program_options.so.1.83.0()(64bit) libboost_serialization.so.1.83.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.3.0)(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpapilo(x86-64) libpapilo-core.so.0()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0(QUADMATH_1.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtbb.so.12()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libpapilo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libclusol.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.3.0)(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0(QUADMATH_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) libtbb.so.12()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libpapilo-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): boost-devel(x86-64) cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libpapilo(x86-64) libpapilo-core.so.0()(64bit) lusol-devel(x86-64) pdqsort-static tbb-devel(x86-64) papilo-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): papilo-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- papilo: bundled(fmt) papilo papilo(x86-64) libpapilo: libpapilo libpapilo(x86-64) libpapilo-core.so.0()(64bit) libpapilo-devel: cmake(papilo) libpapilo-devel libpapilo-devel(x86-64) papilo-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) papilo-debuginfo papilo-debuginfo(x86-64) papilo-debugsource: papilo-debugsource papilo-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2253360 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, Python, R, PHP, Haskell, Java, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) An additional license needs to be specified: Boost Software License 1.0 -------------------------- papilo-2.1.4/src/papilo/misc/extended_euclidean.hpp This is used in: src/papilo/presolvers/SimpleSubstitution.hpp which is installed in libpapilo-devel b) Builds on all non-leaf architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113480454 c) libpapilo does not have the license files and does not require the papilo package, perhaps it should have the license files and the papilo package should require libpapilo? d) The program duplicates has a generic name, but it does not match anything: dnf provides '/usr/bin/duplicates' Last metadata expiration check: 0:02:09 ago on Wed 14 Feb 2024 09:29:26 AM UTC. Error: No matches found. If searching for a file, try specifying the full path or using a wildcard prefix ("*/") at the beginning. e) Unclear why one gets: Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake f) Review of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263821 would be appreciated if time and expertise allow -- 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=2253360 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202253360%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ 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
