https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2255751 --- Comment #15 from Jonathan Steffan <jonathansteffan@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: perfetto-sdk : /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: 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", "Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License". 5782 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/perfetto/licensecheck.txt [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. [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. [x]: 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 56923 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in perfetto [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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in perfetto-libs , perfetto-sdk [?]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 9646080 bytes in /usr/share [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: perfetto-46.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm perfetto-libs-46.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm perfetto-sdk-46.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm perfetto-debuginfo-46.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm perfetto-debugsource-46.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm perfetto-46.0-1.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/tmpttov30x5')] checks: 32, packages: 6 perfetto.x86_64: W: post-without-tmpfile-creation /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/perfetto.conf perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced_probes perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: no-documentation perfetto-sdk.x86_64: E: no-binary perfetto-libs.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libperfetto.so libperfetto.so perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h ========= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings, 43 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.2 s ========== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: perfetto-debuginfo-46.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm perfetto-libs-debuginfo-46.0-1.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/tmprdfwcsw6')] checks: 32, packages: 2 ========= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 19 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ========== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 6 perfetto.x86_64: W: post-without-tmpfile-creation /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/perfetto.conf perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/perfetto traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced perfetto.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traced_probes perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: no-documentation perfetto-sdk.x86_64: E: no-binary perfetto-libs.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libperfetto.so libperfetto.so perfetto-sdk.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/perfetto/sdk/perfetto.h 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings, 47 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.5 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- perfetto-libs: /usr/lib64/libperfetto.so Source checksums ---------------- https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/perfetto/+archive/v46.0.tar.gz#/perfetto-v46.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c7a9117776a040a60c66316d65d90878e2dd29abc6267d79822d4d4aa352b330 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 88e0ab9c72fa1dffc948aef6c15f60925737c9a60989279322cfc18aac13bf41 However, diff -r shows no differences Requires -------- perfetto (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libperfetto.so()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) perfetto-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) perfetto-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) perfetto-sdk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perfetto perfetto-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perfetto-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- perfetto: group(traced) group(traced-consumer) groupmember(traced/traced-consumer) perfetto perfetto(x86-64) user(traced) perfetto-libs: libperfetto.so()(64bit) perfetto-libs perfetto-libs(x86-64) perfetto-sdk: perfetto-sdk perfetto-sdk(x86-64) perfetto-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) perfetto-debuginfo perfetto-debuginfo(x86-64) perfetto-debugsource: perfetto-debugsource perfetto-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n perfetto-46.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Perl, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Python 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=2255751 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202255751%23c15 -- _______________________________________________ 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
