https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264277 --- Comment #24 from Michel Lind <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- This seems mostly good. Two issues (one needs to be fixed now, one can be fixed later on import - but since you're reiterating might as well do it now) must: bpftool ships a LICENSE.GPL-2.0 - the license is no longer identical with libbpf so you need to ship this separately nice to have: you have a .rpmlintrc file, but there is a spelling warning about the summary not being capitalized. In this case it's the tool's name so is a false positive, you should suppress it addFilter("W: summary-not-capitalized") Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1". 261 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2264277-scx_c_schedulers/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. bpftool has a LICENSE.GPL-2.0 that is not shipped ❯ tar tf bpftool-7.2.0^20230926git20ce693.tar.gz | grep LIC bpftool-20ce6933869b70bacfdd0dd1a8399199290bf8ff/LICENSE bpftool-20ce6933869b70bacfdd0dd1a8399199290bf8ff/LICENSE.BSD-2-Clause bpftool-20ce6933869b70bacfdd0dd1a8399199290bf8ff/LICENSE.GPL-2.0 [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. [-]: 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 47634 bytes in 4 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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: [-]: 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. [-]: 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: [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: scx_c_schedulers-0.1.8-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm scx_c_schedulers-debuginfo-0.1.8-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm scx_c_schedulers-debugsource-0.1.8-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm scx_c_schedulers-0.1.8-1.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/tmp1aykqhu5')] checks: 32, packages: 4 scx_c_schedulers.src: W: summary-not-capitalized sched_ext schedulers written in c scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized sched_ext schedulers written in c scx_c_schedulers.src: E: spelling-error ('flatcg', '%description -l en_US flatcg -> flat cg, flat-cg, flatcar') scx_c_schedulers.src: E: spelling-error ('qmap', '%description -l en_US qmap -> map, q map') scx_c_schedulers.src: E: spelling-error ('userland', '%description -l en_US userland -> user land, user-land, slanderous') scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('flatcg', '%description -l en_US flatcg -> flat cg, flat-cg, flatcar') scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('qmap', '%description -l en_US qmap -> map, q map') scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('userland', '%description -l en_US userland -> user land, user-land, slanderous') scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/scx_central scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/scx_flatcg scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/scx_nest scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/scx_pair scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/scx_qmap scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/scx_simple scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/scx_userland scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scx_central scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scx_flatcg scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scx_nest scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scx_pair scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scx_qmap scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scx_simple scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scx_userland scx_c_schedulers-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 122801 ==== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 16 warnings, 46 filtered, 7 badness; has taken 1.5 s === Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: scx_c_schedulers-debuginfo-0.1.8-1.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/tmpqmw6f2ef')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ==== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 31 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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 scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized sched_ext schedulers written in c scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('flatcg', '%description -l en_US flatcg -> flat cg, flat-cg, flatcar') scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('qmap', '%description -l en_US qmap -> map, q map') scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('userland', '%description -l en_US userland -> user land, user-land, slanderous') scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/scx_central scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/scx_flatcg scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/scx_nest scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/scx_pair scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/scx_qmap scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/scx_simple scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/scx_userland scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scx_central scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scx_flatcg scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scx_nest scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scx_pair scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scx_qmap scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scx_simple scx_c_schedulers.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scx_userland scx_c_schedulers-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 122801 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 15 warnings, 42 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 3.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/archive/6d3595d215b014d3eddb88038d686e1c20781534/libbpf-1.4.0~^20240125git6d3595d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 423f1392f1f14226a295b1be68ba14da12d25e86f20c754aed4afeef74bdee7c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 423f1392f1f14226a295b1be68ba14da12d25e86f20c754aed4afeef74bdee7c https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/archive/20ce6933869b70bacfdd0dd1a8399199290bf8ff/bpftool-7.2.0^20230926git20ce693.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3eaa3afc4e8d1109a88d7e138657c6144fb8901af1c3505663208f25538ba426 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3eaa3afc4e8d1109a88d7e138657c6144fb8901af1c3505663208f25538ba426 https://github.com/sched-ext/scx/archive/v0.1.8/scx-0.1.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4e7eac237d71452412401b8bc637b3338610244223b701a65507aeee8e68d2eb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e7eac237d71452412401b8bc637b3338610244223b701a65507aeee8e68d2eb Requires -------- scx_c_schedulers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libelf.so.1()(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.0)(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.3)(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.5)(64bit) libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.6)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.3.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) scx_c_schedulers-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): scx_c_schedulers-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- scx_c_schedulers: bundled(bpftool) bundled(libbpf) scx_c_schedulers scx_c_schedulers(x86-64) scx_c_schedulers-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) scx_c_schedulers-debuginfo scx_c_schedulers-debuginfo(x86-64) scx_c_schedulers-debugsource: scx_c_schedulers-debugsource scx_c_schedulers-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2264277 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, R, Haskell, Java, PHP, Ocaml, Python, Perl 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=2264277 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202264277%23c24 -- _______________________________________________ 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
