https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2269042 Dalton Miner <daltonminer@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |needinfo?(ngompa13@xxxxxxxx | |m) --- Comment #2 from Dalton Miner <daltonminer@xxxxxxxxx> --- Notes: * libfetch is vendored into the source tree. Should this be packaged and depended on, or is this not the kind of bundling that's a problem? * apk-tools does run, but fails on most operations without a database. Expected? * Technically upstream does provide tests, but only a very basic smoke test. Could be included in %check if possible. * Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. Reviewer: apk.so not in `ldconfig -p` output after install [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. 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc, /usr/src, /usr/lib64/lua/5.4, /usr/share/man/man5, /usr/lib64/lua, /usr/lib, /usr/sbin, /usr/lib64, /usr/include, /usr/src/debug, /usr/lib64/pkgconfig, /usr/share, /usr/share/licenses, /usr, /usr/share/man, /usr/share/man/man8 Reviewer: /usr/lib64/lua comes from lua-libs, required via lua(abi). The rest of these are standard LFH dirs as far as I can tell, so I'm not sure why rpmlint complains about them? [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc, /usr/lib64/lua/5.4, /usr/share, /usr/share/man/man5, /usr/lib64/lua, /usr/lib, /usr, /usr/sbin, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/man, /usr/lib64, /usr/include, /usr/src/debug, /usr/src, /usr/share/man/man8, /usr/lib64/pkgconfig [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Notes: libfetch is bundled in sources. [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. [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]: 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 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 193 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lua-apk , libapk , libapk-devel Reviewer: lua-apk depends on libapk - %{name} is apk-tools [!]: Package functions as described. Reviewer: Package installs and help text works, but database is not initialized. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [?]: 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. Reviewer: Upstream does not publish source signatures [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Reviewer: Project does have tests but they appear to be only extremely basic smoke tests. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: apk-tools-2.14.1-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm lua-apk-2.14.1-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm libapk-2.14.1-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm libapk-devel-2.14.1-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm apk-tools-debuginfo-2.14.1-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm apk-tools-debugsource-2.14.1-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm apk-tools-2.14.1-1.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/tmpjlxapmwc')] checks: 32, packages: 7 Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: apk-tools-debuginfo-2.14.1-1.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/tmpw9_vg8q3')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "libapk-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "apk-tools-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "lua-apk". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "apk-tools". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "apk-tools-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "libapk". 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: 6 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- lua-apk: /usr/lib64/lua/5.4/apk.so Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/apk-tools/-/archive/v2.14.1/apk-tools-v2.14.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c06487563cae9e92161dfe1a81e714f700229cc0ad075b6c26ac3f157892e732 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c06487563cae9e92161dfe1a81e714f700229cc0ad075b6c26ac3f157892e732 Requires -------- apk-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libapk(x86-64) libapk.so.2.14.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) lua-apk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libapk(x86-64) libapk.so.2.14.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) lua(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) libapk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libapk-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libapk(x86-64) libapk.so.2.14.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(openssl) pkgconfig(zlib) apk-tools-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): apk-tools-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- apk-tools: apk-tools apk-tools(x86-64) lua-apk: lua-apk lua-apk(x86-64) libapk: libapk libapk(x86-64) libapk.so.2.14.0()(64bit) libapk-devel: libapk-devel libapk-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(apk) apk-tools-debuginfo: apk-tools-debuginfo apk-tools-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) apk-tools-debugsource: apk-tools-debugsource apk-tools-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=2269042 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202269042%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ 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
