https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2281544 --- Comment #7 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0-or-newer AND CC0-1.0 AND CC- BY-SA-4.0 AND GFDL-1.2-or-later'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 ===== 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: "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike 4.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU Free Documentation License v1.2", "BSD 3-Clause License". 101 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2281544-skladnik/srpm-unpacked/review- skladnik/licensecheck.txt [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. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/HTML/it, /usr/share/doc/HTML, /usr/share/doc/HTML/en, /usr/share/doc/HTML/uk, /usr/share/doc/HTML/ca, /usr/share/doc/HTML/es, /usr/share/doc/HTML/nl [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. [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [ ]: 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 122219 bytes in 14 files. [ ]: 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 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 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 the first command in %prep. [ ]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: skladnik-24.05.0-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm skladnik-debuginfo-24.05.0-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm skladnik-debugsource-24.05.0-1.fc41.aarch64.rpm skladnik-24.05.0-1.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/tmpctk1y07i')] checks: 32, packages: 4 skladnik.aarch64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer skladnik.src: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer skladnik-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer skladnik-debugsource.aarch64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer =============== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ================ Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: skladnik-debuginfo-24.05.0-1.fc41.aarch64.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/tmpx6tr9iwe')] checks: 32, packages: 1 skladnik-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer ================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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 skladnik-debugsource.aarch64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer skladnik-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer skladnik.aarch64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0-or-newer 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://kde.org/info/kde-gear-signing-keys.pgp : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 00bc4dd449f705b9d1c59b5e2737747cd840573a49cbe83e470f638bab167cb8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 00bc4dd449f705b9d1c59b5e2737747cd840573a49cbe83e470f638bab167cb8 https://download.kde.org/stable/release-service/24.05.0/src/skladnik-24.05.0.tar.xz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : aa081f993b8e637e0a51b2df1b94fc73369c48715a825a9cedcb0c8e080598c9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aa081f993b8e637e0a51b2df1b94fc73369c48715a825a9cedcb0c8e080598c9 https://download.kde.org/stable/release-service/24.05.0/src/skladnik-24.05.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c22970dbedc9855195f07e87e554083cd0034c4142d37b209cdff45b964a7aff CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c22970dbedc9855195f07e87e554083cd0034c4142d37b209cdff45b964a7aff Requires -------- skladnik (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libKDEGames6.so.6()(64bit) libKF6ConfigCore.so.6()(64bit) libKF6ConfigWidgets.so.6()(64bit) libKF6CoreAddons.so.6()(64bit) libKF6Crash.so.6()(64bit) libKF6DBusAddons.so.6()(64bit) libKF6I18n.so.6()(64bit) libKF6KIOCore.so.6()(64bit) libKF6WidgetsAddons.so.6()(64bit) libKF6XmlGui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.7)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) skladnik-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): skladnik-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- skladnik: application() application(org.kde.skladnik.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(org.kde.skladnik.metainfo.xml) skladnik skladnik(aarch-64) skladnik-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) skladnik-debuginfo skladnik-debuginfo(aarch-64) skladnik-debugsource: skladnik-debugsource skladnik-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n skladnik Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Python, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Perl, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) The %{kf6_stable} macro seemed not to work for me when using fedora review. b) Can the signature be verified? Change: Source : https://download.kde.org/%{stable_kf6}/release-service/%{version}/src/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz to Source0: https://download.kde.org/stable/release-service/%{version}/src/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz Source1: https://download.kde.org/stable/release-service/%{version}/src/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz.sig Source2: https://kde.org/info/kde-gear-signing-keys.pgp also change: # KDE Gear dependencies BuildRequires: cmake(KDEGames6) to: # KDE Gear dependencies BuildRequires: cmake(KDEGames6) # Check Signature BuildRequires: gnupg2 and finally change: %autosetup to: %autosetup %{gpgverify} --keyring='%{SOURCE2}' --signature='%{SOURCE1}' --data='%{SOURCE0}' c) Please change License: GPL-2.0-or-newer AND CC0-1.0 AND CC-BY-SA-4.0 AND GFDL-1.2-or-later to License: GPL-2.0-or-later AND CC0-1.0 AND CC-BY-SA-4.0 AND GFDL-1.2-or-later d) Is directory ownership a bug in fedora-review? -- 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=2281544 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202281544%23c7 -- _______________________________________________ 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
