https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279277 --- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: - Please fix rpmlint where appropriate. - Please use 'install -p' as noted earlier. ===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [-]: 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 [-]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 5141 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. I did minimal testing, but it seems basic function is OK. [x]: Latest version is packaged. Currently the latest snapshot. [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. Upstream doesn't support it. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. No upstream tests. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Please use 'install -p' [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) False positive, probably autochangelog. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: emu8051-0~20220911git5dc68127-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm emu8051-debuginfo-0~20220911git5dc68127-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm emu8051-debugsource-0~20220911git5dc68127-2.fc39.x86_64.rpm emu8051-0~20220911git5dc68127-2.fc39.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/tmptu3gd7mo')] checks: 32, packages: 4 emu8051.src: E: spelling-error ('microcontrollers', '%description -l en_US microcontrollers -> micro controllers, micro-controllers, microelectronics') emu8051.src: E: spelling-error ('www', '%description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow') emu8051.src: E: spelling-error ('particularily', '%description -l en_US particularily -> particularly, particularity, particularize') emu8051.src: E: spelling-error ('unneccessary', '%description -l en_US unneccessary -> unnecessary, unnecessarily, necessary') Probably spelling errors emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('microcontrollers', '%description -l en_US microcontrollers -> micro controllers, micro-controllers, microelectronics') emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('www', '%description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow') emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('particularily', '%description -l en_US particularily -> particularly, particularity, particularize') emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unneccessary', '%description -l en_US unneccessary -> unnecessary, unnecessarily, necessary') emu8051.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary emu8051 emu8051.src: E: description-line-too-long What is particularily left out is clock-cycle exact simulation of processor pins. emu8051.src: E: description-line-too-long (For instance, MUL is a 48-clock operation on the 8051. On which clock cycle does emu8051.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long What is particularily left out is clock-cycle exact simulation of processor pins. emu8051.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long (For instance, MUL is a 48-clock operation on the 8051. On which clock cycle does Please fix line lengths ============================================ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 1 warnings, 16 filtered, 12 badness; has taken 1.5 s ============================================= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: emu8051-debuginfo-0~20220911git5dc68127-2.fc39.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/tmpayefemy1')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ============================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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 emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('microcontrollers', '%description -l en_US microcontrollers -> micro controllers, micro-controllers, microelectronics') emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('www', '%description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow') emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('particularily', '%description -l en_US particularily -> particularly, particularity, particularize') emu8051.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('unneccessary', '%description -l en_US unneccessary -> unnecessary, unnecessarily, necessary') emu8051.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary emu8051 emu8051.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long What is particularily left out is clock-cycle exact simulation of processor pins. emu8051.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long (For instance, MUL is a 48-clock operation on the 8051. On which clock cycle does 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 1 warnings, 13 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 1.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jarikomppa/emu8051/archive/5dc681275151c4a5d7b85ec9ff4ceb1b25abd5a8.tar.gz#/emu8051-5dc681275151c4a5d7b85ec9ff4ceb1b25abd5a8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9302ad27c4895e696b73cb9d9ccdaf5a00e180caa97b88e5d1d529b4113cfa64 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9302ad27c4895e696b73cb9d9ccdaf5a00e180caa97b88e5d1d529b4113cfa64 Requires -------- emu8051 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) emu8051-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): emu8051-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- emu8051: emu8051 emu8051(x86-64) emu8051-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) emu8051-debuginfo emu8051-debuginfo(x86-64) emu8051-debugsource: emu8051-debugsource emu8051-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/yarda/git-fedora/emu8051/2279277-emu8051/srpm/emu8051.spec 2024-05-06 19:02:38.390120214 +0200 +++ /home/yarda/git-fedora/emu8051/2279277-emu8051/srpm-unpacked/emu8051.spec 2024-05-06 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.6.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global forgeurl0 https://github.com/jarikomppa/emu8051 %global gitcommit 5dc681275151c4a5d7b85ec9ff4ceb1b25abd5a8 @@ -58,3 +68,12 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Mon May 06 2024 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0~20220911git5dc68127-2 +- Use autorelease + +* Mon May 06 2024 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0~20220911git5dc68127-1 +- Initial spec file + +* Sun Sep 11 2022 Jari Komppa <jari.komppa@xxxxxxxxx> +- RPMAUTOSPEC: unresolvable merge +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-39-x86_64 -b 2279277 Buildroot used: fedora-39-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, R, Java, Haskell, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2279277 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279277%23c5 -- _______________________________________________ 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
