https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2263562 Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- ackage Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD-2-Clause and BSD-3-Clause'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 ===== 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", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2263562-rsgain/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. [ ]: 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. [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 34333 bytes in 1 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]: 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: [x]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rsgain-3.5-4.fc41.aarch64.rpm rsgain-debuginfo-3.5-4.fc41.aarch64.rpm rsgain-debugsource-3.5-4.fc41.aarch64.rpm rsgain-3.5-4.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/tmp5ezplgqn')] checks: 32, packages: 4 rsgain.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 0001-Include-LICENSE-from-bundled-CRC-library.patch rsgain.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rsgain ==== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ===== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rsgain-debuginfo-3.5-4.fc41.aarch64.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/tmptsl1r1n1')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ===== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 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: 3 rsgain.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rsgain 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/complexlogic/rsgain/archive/v3.5/rsgain-3.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 46689e175be24d1d662002dcd2ab5a2f77e644904e88228ca3f3b8d118b266be CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 46689e175be24d1d662002dcd2ab5a2f77e644904e88228ca3f3b8d118b266be Requires -------- rsgain (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libavcodec.so.60()(64bit) libavcodec.so.60(LIBAVCODEC_60)(64bit) libavformat.so.60()(64bit) libavformat.so.60(LIBAVFORMAT_60)(64bit) libavutil.so.58()(64bit) libavutil.so.58(LIBAVUTIL_58)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libebur128.so.1()(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) libinih.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libswresample.so.4()(64bit) libswresample.so.4(LIBSWRESAMPLE_4)(64bit) libtag.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rsgain-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rsgain-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- rsgain: bundled(CRCpp) rsgain rsgain(aarch-64) rsgain-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) rsgain-debuginfo rsgain-debuginfo(aarch-64) rsgain-debugsource: rsgain-debugsource rsgain-debugsource(aarch-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora/2263562-rsgain/srpm/rsgain.spec 2024-03-07 14:29:14.686340492 +0000 +++ /home/fedora/2263562-rsgain/srpm-unpacked/rsgain.spec 2024-03-04 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.8) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 4; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Version: 3.5 %global forgeurl https://github.com/complexlogic/rsgain/ @@ -63,3 +73,18 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Mon Mar 04 2024 Peter Oliver <git@xxxxxxxxxxxx> - 3.5-4 +- Admit to bundling the CRCpp library. + +* Mon Mar 04 2024 Peter Oliver <git@xxxxxxxxxxxx> - 3.5-3 +- Own our directories. + +* Mon Mar 04 2024 Peter Oliver <git@xxxxxxxxxxxx> - 3.5-2 +- Run a rudimentary smoketest during the %%check stage. + +* Mon Mar 04 2024 Peter Oliver <git@xxxxxxxxxxxx> - 3.5-1 +- Update to version 3.5. + +* Fri Feb 09 2024 Peter Oliver <git@xxxxxxxxxxxx> - 3.4-1 +- Initial package. +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2263562 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Python, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, fonts, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please use BSD-2-Clause AND BSD-3-Clause instead of BSD-2-Clause and BSD-3-Clause b) Above can be done on import. Approved. -- 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=2263562 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202263562%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
