https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279057 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #8 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== - The License field is incomplete. In addition to MPL-2.0, these files have different licenses: src/visualizations/sunburst-clock.ts: Apache-2.0 media-fonts/varela-round-latin.woff2: OFL-1.1-RFN - Where is the bundled-licenses file produced by nodejs-packaging-bundler? See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Node.js/#_bundled_licenses - I'm a little worried about Source3. The README.md file in that tarball says it contains media assets "included as a git submodule in repos like aw-qt and aw-webui". So if we have other Fedora packages that include this, we'll duplicate these media assets. Wouldn't it be better to make that a separate package that can then be referenced from nodejs-aw-webui, and possibly other packages later? - The varela-round-latin font is not being handled in accordance with the font packaging guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - Should the spec file include "Requires: nodejs", as in the example spec? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Node.js/#_example_spec - Just a suggestion: rpm now supports a syntax for conditionals that is a little easier to understand: %bcond check 1 ===== MUST items ===== 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. [!]: 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* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "ISC License and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* ISC License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License [generated file]", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "ISC License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "Apache License 2.0 and/or ISC License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Artistic License 2.0", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "*No copyright* DON'T BE A DICK PUBLIC LICENSE", "W3C License", "*No copyright* W3C Software and Document Notice and License (2015-05-13)", "Academic Free License v2.1 and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Academic Free License", "*No copyright* Academic Free License v2.1", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "MIT License and/or X11 License", "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2 and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License and/or X11 License", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or MIT License", "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 3.0", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License and/or BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause Clear License", "BSD 0-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 0-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* MIT License [generated file]". 42442 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2279057-nodejs-aw-webui/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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]: 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 4211 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. There have been more commits since the commit referenced by this package. [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]: %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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-aw-webui-0^20240509.cb83d12-1.fc41.noarch.rpm nodejs-aw-webui-0^20240509.cb83d12-1.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/tmpiwslrd2h')] checks: 32, packages: 2 nodejs-aw-webui.src: W: strange-permission aw-webui-cb83d12-nm-dev.tgz 744 nodejs-aw-webui.src: W: strange-permission aw-webui-cb83d12-nm-prod.tgz 744 nodejs-aw-webui.src: W: strange-permission nodejs-aw-webui.spec 744 nodejs-aw-webui.spec: W: invalid-url Source2: aw-webui-cb83d12-nm-dev.tgz nodejs-aw-webui.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: aw-webui-cb83d12-nm-prod.tgz =========== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ActivityWatch/media/archive/ae8d3737a4984cc891076dc830ad117b13288a9f/media-ae8d373.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2e2daddeb61cf3289b2894f3d21e6e8edc997a777c2cb1c995841dc276368872 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2e2daddeb61cf3289b2894f3d21e6e8edc997a777c2cb1c995841dc276368872 https://github.com/ActivityWatch/aw-webui/archive/cb83d124961affe2ae25f488eb14422ee35e66c8/aw-webui-cb83d12.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 22bfdc8b49d65add274e75347804000e81ce0f0d4dc0039d7914635f7b55d55f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 22bfdc8b49d65add274e75347804000e81ce0f0d4dc0039d7914635f7b55d55f Requires -------- nodejs-aw-webui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- nodejs-aw-webui: nodejs-aw-webui Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2279057 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, C/C++, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, R, Ruby, Python, Haskell, PHP 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=2279057 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202279057%23c8 -- _______________________________________________ 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
