https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276821 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Few more remarks: * Wrong Source0 link - note tag is prefixed with "v". Please fix it by specifying "%global tag %{version}" right before the "%forgemeta" tag. * The package owns /usr/share/gdb/ directory. Instead it should depend on a package which provides this directory (gdb-headless which is pulled in as a dependency for gdb). Consider removing "%dir %{_datadir}/gdb" line entirely. * A proper ExclusiveArch should be this - "ExclusiveArch: x86_64". We simply do not have "noarch"-builder. For the record ExclusiveArch directive restricts the list of Builder's arches where package is going to built but the arch of the package is set by this line "BuildArch: noarch" (by default it's the arch of the builder). Now the official part. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (MIT). [!]: Package must not own files or directories owned by other packages. See my remarks related to "/usr/share/gdb" directory above. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format - %autochangelog. [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. Unfortunately tests doesn't pass on a nonintel arches. Very little we can do here. [-]: No large documentation files. Well we do have ~600 kbytes of docs but I don't see it as really huge size. [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 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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source. See my comment about Sourceo tag above. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: I dot not tested package functioning. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: Sources are not verified with gpgverify. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. Unfortunately only on x86_64. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: gdb-gef-2024.06-4.fc41.noarch.rpm gdb-gef-2024.06-4.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/tmpg1ml91re')] checks: 32, packages: 2 gdb-gef.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ʤɛf', '%description -l en_US ʤɛf ') gdb-gef.src: E: spelling-error ('ʤɛf', '%description -l en_US ʤɛf ') ^^^ False positives. gdb-gef.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 61% ^^^ Not really critical. gdb-gef.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gdb-gef ^^^ We should someday ask upstream for that. gdb-gef.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gdb-gef/docs/.markdownlint.yaml ^^^ Not sure what's the puprpose of this file. Maybe just remove it from the package? ==================================================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 8 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.9 s =================================================================================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 1 gdb-gef.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ʤɛf', '%description -l en_US ʤɛf ') gdb-gef.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 61% gdb-gef.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gdb-gef gdb-gef.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/gdb-gef/docs/.markdownlint.yaml 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 4 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Requires -------- gdb-gef (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh binutils file gdb procps-ng Provides -------- gdb-gef: gdb-gef Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn /home/petro/rpmbuild/SRPMS/gdb-gef-2024.06-4.fc40.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, R, Java, fonts, C/C++, Haskell, Perl, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH OK, please address the issues mentioned above before uploading. This package is ================ === APPROVED === ================ -- 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=2276821 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202276821%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
