https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271521 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-3.0-only and Unicode-3.0'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 I think it is complaining about "and", which should be upper case: "AND". - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mined See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names This just means that you have to use the unretirement process instead of the new package process. - Source1 is a copy of the file available from the unicode-ucd-unihan package. You've classified it as Unicode-3.0. The unicode-ucd-unihan package says it is "Unicode-DFS-2016 AND Unicode-TOU". I don't know who is right, but we need to reconcile the differing licenses, and determine if this package should use the zip file from unicode-ucd-unihan. - /usr/share/doc/mined/README is a symlink to a file that doesn't exist in the binary package - Should the files in /usr/share/mined/doc_user be in /usr/share/doc/mined instead? - I have questions about the files in /usr/share/mined/bin. - umined, uterm, and xmined are also in /usr/bin. Are they really needed in both places? - wined.bat is an MS-DOS script. We don't need that, do we? - wined requires mintty, which we don't have in Fedora. - Should mterm and uprint be in /usr/bin also? - Should the files in /usr/share/mined/conf_user be in /etc/default instead? - /usr/share/mined/setup_install contains more Windows-specific files, as well as copies of the desktop and icon files, already installed elsewhere. - Since this package installs a desktop file, it SHOULD also install an AppData file: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ - The files in man are ISO-8559-1. They should be converted to UTF-8. - The man pages are incorrectly installed with executable permissions. - I don't know how serious we really are about the "American English" thing, but "behaviour" in %description is British English. We Americans omit the 'u': "behavior". ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 3". 510 files have unknown license. Although note the Unihan license issue above. [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. [-]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 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 5913 bytes in 1 files. [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). [?]: 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. [!]: %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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2498560 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mined-2022.27-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm mined-debuginfo-2022.27-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm mined-debugsource-2022.27-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm mined-2022.27-1.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/tmpfzysqug_')] checks: 32, packages: 4 mined.x86_64: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/mined/setup_install/win/MinEd Web Manual.url mined.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/mined.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/minmacs.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/mpico.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/mstar.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/umined.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/uterm.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/xmined.1.gz mined.src: E: spelling-error ('unicode', 'Summary(en_US) unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code') mined.src: E: spelling-error ('behaviour', '%description -l en_US behaviour -> behavior') mined.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unicode', 'Summary(en_US) unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code') mined.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('behaviour', '%description -l en_US behaviour -> behavior') mined.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/mined/setup_install/win/MinEd Web Manual.url mined.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/pixmaps/mined.xpm mined.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/mined/doc_user/.minedrc mined.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 152924 mined.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/mined/setup_install/mined.desktop /usr/share/applications/mined.desktop mined.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/man/man1/xmined.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/minmacs.1.gz:/usr/share/man/man1/mpico.1.gz:/usr/share/man/man1/mstar.1.gz:/usr/share/man/man1/umined.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/mined/doc_user/.minedrc /usr/share/mined/conf_user/minedrc mined.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/pixmaps/mined.xpm /usr/share/mined/setup_install/mined.xpm mined.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/mined.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/uterm.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/mined/README usrshare/package_doc/README ========== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 15 warnings, 16 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.7 s ========== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: mined-debuginfo-2022.27-1.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/tmp7iaccsnb')] checks: 32, packages: 1 =========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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 mined.x86_64: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/mined/setup_install/win/MinEd Web Manual.url mined.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/mined.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/minmacs.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/mpico.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/mstar.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/umined.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/uterm.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/xmined.1.gz mined.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unicode', 'Summary(en_US) unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code') mined.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('behaviour', '%description -l en_US behaviour -> behavior') mined.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/mined/setup_install/win/MinEd Web Manual.url mined.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/pixmaps/mined.xpm mined.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/mined/doc_user/.minedrc mined.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 152924 mined.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/mined/setup_install/mined.desktop /usr/share/applications/mined.desktop mined.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/man/man1/xmined.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/minmacs.1.gz:/usr/share/man/man1/mpico.1.gz:/usr/share/man/man1/mstar.1.gz:/usr/share/man/man1/umined.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/mined/doc_user/.minedrc /usr/share/mined/conf_user/minedrc mined.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/pixmaps/mined.xpm /usr/share/mined/setup_install/mined.xpm mined.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/mined.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/uterm.1.gz mined.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/mined/README usrshare/package_doc/README 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 15 warnings, 13 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/Unihan.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a0226610e324bcf784ac380e11f4cbf533ee1e6b3d028b0991bf8c0dc3f85853 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a0226610e324bcf784ac380e11f4cbf533ee1e6b3d028b0991bf8c0dc3f85853 https://github.com/mined/mined/archive/2022.27/mined-v2022.27.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c4b35b068f2bba3e34f0ef9a989602b4bbed3f76c95b79788de1ad596ac50a68 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c4b35b068f2bba3e34f0ef9a989602b4bbed3f76c95b79788de1ad596ac50a68 Requires -------- mined (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) mined-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mined-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mined: application() application(mined.desktop) mimehandler(text/plain) mined mined(x86-64) mined-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) mined-debuginfo mined-debuginfo(x86-64) mined-debugsource: mined-debugsource mined-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2271521 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, R, Perl, Ruby, Python 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=2271521 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202271521%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
