https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297083 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Steffan <jonathansteffan@xxxxxxxxx> --- Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ This might be a false finding as I'm not familiar with "toolchain rocm", but I think this is still valid. - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD-3-Clause ICS AND MIT AND'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "ISC License", "MIT License", "GNU General Public License". 2137 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jon/Reviews/magma/licensecheck.txt The trailing AND. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. The gfx subpackages don't pull in the main, so they are missing COPYRIGHT. [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. build_cxxflags might be dropping more than you expected. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Requires: rocm-rpm-macros-modules? The subpackages don't require the main. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Documenting that it is known to require ExclusiveArch. [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. See comment about build_cxxflags. The build seemed to use all of my cores but this check failed. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Not all licenses are shipped. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in magma- gfx90a , magma-gfx942 , magma-gfx1100 , magma-gfx1103 The subpackages don't require on the main. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Should your soname versioning go upstream vs this downstream patch? [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. No check included. There seems to be some sort of testing available. Should we be running it? -- 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=2297083 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202297083%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ 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
