https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263767 --- Comment #4 from Arthur Bols <arthur@xxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the update! Almost there: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Remarks: ======== - The license breakdown should be above the `License:` field. This is my fault, sorry for the confusion. - You can use %forgeautosetup -p1 to replace %forgesetup and %autopatch Issues: ======= - Requires correct, justified where necessary rpmlint error: explicit-lib-dependency libevent Remove the 'Requires: libevent', this is done automatically by rpm. - rpmlint error missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid There is already a PR ;) https://github.com/darkk/redsocks/pull/50 Other rpmlint errors may be ignored. ===== 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]: 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "zlib License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later and/or zlib License". 69 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora-review/2263767-redsocks/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. [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. [-]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: 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 17971 bytes in 2 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in redsocks [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. Upstream hasn't responded in years [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. This is ok. Upstream hasn't responded in years and license files are missing [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Ok. Tests use docker [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: redsocks-0.5-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm redsocks-debuginfo-0.5-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm redsocks-debugsource-0.5-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm redsocks-0.5-1.fc41.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/tmpwkp0e5pi')] checks: 32, packages: 4 redsocks.x86_64: E: useless-provides group(redsocks) redsocks.src: E: spelling-error ('redirector', 'Summary(en_US) redirector -> re director, re-director, redirect or') redsocks.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('redirector', 'Summary(en_US) redirector -> re director, re-director, redirect or') redsocks.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/sysconfig/redsocks redsocks.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/redsocks redsocks.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libevent ============================================================================= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings, 17 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.5 s ============================================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: redsocks-debuginfo-0.5-1.fc41.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/tmpslsi1g5u')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ============================================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ============================================================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ============================ 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: 3 redsocks.x86_64: E: useless-provides group(redsocks) redsocks.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('redirector', 'Summary(en_US) redirector -> re director, re-director, redirect or') redsocks.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/sysconfig/redsocks redsocks.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/redsocks redsocks.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libevent 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 13 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/darkk/redsocks/archive/release-0.5/redsocks-release-0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bbeb531d7f1986d7102f1bd6733dacce41d3f3ba7d604f1aab61c63e0ba2ee62 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bbeb531d7f1986d7102f1bd6733dacce41d3f3ba7d604f1aab61c63e0ba2ee62 Requires -------- redsocks (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(redsocks) libc.so.6()(64bit) libevent libevent_core-2.1.so.7()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) redsocks-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): redsocks-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- redsocks: config(redsocks) group(redsocks) redsocks redsocks(x86-64) user(redsocks) redsocks-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) redsocks-debuginfo redsocks-debuginfo(x86-64) redsocks-debugsource: redsocks-debugsource redsocks-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2263767 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, fonts, R, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2263767 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202263767%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
