https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268011 Mikel Olasagasti Uranga <mikel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga <mikel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or MIT License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 2-Clause License and/or MIT License". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gotmax/dev/go-vendor-tools/go-vendor-tools/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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/lib/rpm, /usr/lib/python3.12 [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. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3487 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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). [x]: 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. [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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define tag v%{version} [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: go-vendor-tools-0.0.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm go-vendor-tools+all-0.0.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm go-vendor-tools-0.0.1-1.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/tmpijsmbjll')] checks: 32, packages: 3 go-vendor-tools+all.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Metapackage', 'Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage') go-vendor-tools+all.noarch: E: spelling-error ('metapackage', '%description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage') go-vendor-tools.noarch: E: spelling-error ('vendoring', 'Summary(en_US) vendoring -> endorsing') go-vendor-tools.noarch: E: spelling-error ('vendoring', '%description -l en_US vendoring -> endorsing') go-vendor-tools.src: E: spelling-error ('vendoring', 'Summary(en_US) vendoring -> endorsing') go-vendor-tools.src: E: spelling-error ('vendoring', '%description -l en_US vendoring -> endorsing') go-vendor-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary go_vendor_archive go-vendor-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary go_vendor_license go-vendor-tools+all.noarch: W: no-documentation === 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 warnings, 30 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 1.4 s === Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "go-vendor-tools+all". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "go-vendor-tools". 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 Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/gotmax23/go-vendor-tools/-/archive/v0.0.1/go-vendor-tools-v0.0.1.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c88387dba79497f9ffccd67455e52fc4ec53af2aeb0ff4ae7f7970612d309c85 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c88387dba79497f9ffccd67455e52fc4ec53af2aeb0ff4ae7f7970612d309c85 Requires -------- go-vendor-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (askalono-cli or trivy) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.12dist(license-expression) go-vendor-tools+all (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): go-vendor-tools python(abi) python3.12dist(tomlkit) Provides -------- go-vendor-tools: go-vendor-tools python3.12dist(go-vendor-tools) python3dist(go-vendor-tools) rpm_macro(go_vendor_license_check) rpm_macro(go_vendor_license_filelist) rpm_macro(go_vendor_license_install) go-vendor-tools+all: go-vendor-tools+all python3.12dist(go-vendor-tools[all]) python3dist(go-vendor-tools[all]) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -prn go-vendor-tools Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, R, fonts, Java, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, PHP 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=2268011 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202268011%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ 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
