https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271976 --- Comment #12 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #11) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > > Issues: > ======= > - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ > > I don't think this applies here? > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. > Note: Sources not installed > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [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* GNU General Public > License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", > "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or NTP > License (legal disclaimer)", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License > 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "BSD > 0-Clause License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* The > Unlicense", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 > 1.0", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0) or > MIT license and/or MIT License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT > License", "zlib License", "*No copyright* zlib License", "Apache > License (v2.0) or MIT license", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0) > or MIT license", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License and/or Creative > Commons Attribution 3.0 and/or MIT License", "Apache License (v2.0) or > MIT license and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "ISC > License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "*No > copyright* SIL Open Font License", "*No copyright* Boost Software > License 1.0", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0) or bsd_ > 3-clause_clause", "Unicode License Agreement - Data Files and Software > (2016)", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License", "SIL > Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1", > "Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* ISC License", "*No > copyright* Artistic License 2.0", "GNU General Public License, Version > 2", "*No copyright* W3C License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Boost > Software License 1.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version > 2.1", "W3C Software and Document Notice and License (2015-05-13)", > "Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License [generated file]", "Historical > Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant", "BSD 2-Clause with > views sentence", "Khronos License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause > License and/or Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* Public > domain", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* > Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "MIT Open Group > variant", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "CMU > License". 25548 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2271976-cosmic-comp/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /etc/cosmic-comp > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/cosmic-comp Adding "%dir %{_sysconfdir}/cosmic-comp" to the %files section fixes this. > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > Note: Especially check following dirs for bundled code: > /home/ngompa/2271976-cosmic-comp/upstream- > unpacked/Source1/vendor/input-sys/include, > /home/ngompa/2271976-cosmic-comp/upstream-unpacked/Source1/vendor/gbm- > sys/include, /home/ngompa/2271976-cosmic-comp/upstream- > unpacked/Source1/vendor/pin-project/tests/include, > /home/ngompa/2271976-cosmic-comp/upstream- > unpacked/Source1/vendor/ash/src/extensions/ext, > /home/ngompa/2271976-cosmic-comp/upstream- > unpacked/Source1/vendor/qoi/ext, /home/ngompa/2271976-cosmic- > comp/upstream-unpacked/Source1/vendor/bitflags/src/external, > /home/ngompa/2271976-cosmic-comp/upstream- > unpacked/Source1/vendor/uuid/src/external, > /home/ngompa/2271976-cosmic-comp/upstream- > unpacked/Source1/vendor/zerocopy/src/third_party, > /home/ngompa/2271976-cosmic-comp/upstream-unpacked/Source1/vendor/pin- > project-lite/tests/include > [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. > [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 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files. > [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). > [x]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments Your custom tarball generation needs to be documented somehow. Or if it's not custom anymore, change it to point to fetch them from GitHub directly, like so: Source0: %{url}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz > [-]: 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]: 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]: 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: cosmic-comp-0.1.0~git20240423.04.9022747-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm > > cosmic-comp-debuginfo-0.1.0~git20240423.04.9022747-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm > > cosmic-comp-debugsource-0.1.0~git20240423.04.9022747-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm > cosmic-comp-0.1.0~git20240423.04.9022747-1.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/tmp4rgc93go')] > checks: 32, packages: 4 > > cosmic-comp.src: E: summary-too-long Compositor for the COSMIC Desktop > Environment. Can also be used as a standalone compositor. > cosmic-comp.x86_64: E: summary-too-long Compositor for the COSMIC Desktop > Environment. Can also be used as a standalone compositor. > cosmic-comp.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Compositor for the COSMIC Desktop > Environment. Can also be used as a standalone compositor. > cosmic-comp.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Compositor for the COSMIC > Desktop Environment. Can also be used as a standalone compositor. > cosmic-comp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cosmic-comp > cosmic-comp.x86_64: W: no-documentation > cosmic-comp.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: > cosmic-comp-90227471bf66b4f63554905becfcf3308f3fedeb-vendor.tar.xz > cosmic-comp.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: > cosmic-comp-90227471bf66b4f63554905becfcf3308f3fedeb.tar.xz > cosmic-comp-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 199355 > cosmic-comp.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libseat > cosmic-comp.src: E: description-line-too-long Compositor for the COSMIC > Desktop Environment. Can also be used as a standalone compositor.. > cosmic-comp.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Compositor for the COSMIC > Desktop Environment. Can also be used as a standalone compositor.. > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 6 warnings, 40 filtered, 6 > badness; has taken 2.2 s > This is easily fixed by reflowing some of the text in the description. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271976 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202271976%23c12 -- _______________________________________________ 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
