https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297781 --- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [Some issues were found but they were all bogus] ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License [generated file]". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/review/2297781-ocaml-spdx-licenses/licensecheck.txt The upstream sources have some generate files without licenses at the top, but it's obvious the whole thing is intended to be MIT. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Uses dune to build. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. Uses autochangelog. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Debuginfo is generated on all platforms that have the native OCaml compiler. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 797 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Ocaml: [x]: This should never happen ===== 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. Latest upstream is also 1.2.0. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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: ocaml-spdx-licenses-1.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ocaml-spdx-licenses-devel-1.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ocaml-spdx-licenses-1.2.0-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpn7sn8duy')] checks: 32, packages: 3 ocaml-spdx-licenses-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/spdx_licenses/spdx_licenses.a ocaml-spdx-licenses-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-spdx-licenses-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/ocaml/spdx_licenses/licenseIDs.mli /usr/lib64/ocaml/spdx_licenses/exceptionIDs.mli I think it's just a coincidence that these files are duplicates. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ocaml-spdx-licenses-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpqxji89qt')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 3 ocaml-spdx-licenses-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ocaml/spdx_licenses/spdx_licenses.a ocaml-spdx-licenses-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-spdx-licenses-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/ocaml/spdx_licenses/licenseIDs.mli /usr/lib64/ocaml/spdx_licenses/exceptionIDs.mli 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 13 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/kit-ty-kate/spdx_licenses/archive/v1.2.0/spdx_licenses-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d2fd1fcc2da4dea294333f00ef43021fb40baf30cc3cc3814272101120f19195 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d2fd1fcc2da4dea294333f00ef43021fb40baf30cc3cc3814272101120f19195 Requires -------- ocaml-spdx-licenses (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__ExceptionIDs) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__Lexer) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__LicenseIDs) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__Parser) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__Types) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__Array) ocaml(Stdlib__Either) ocaml(Stdlib__Int32) ocaml(Stdlib__Lexing) ocaml(Stdlib__List) ocaml(Stdlib__Obj) ocaml(Stdlib__Parsing) ocaml(Stdlib__Result) ocaml(Stdlib__Seq) ocaml(Stdlib__String) ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar) rtld(GNU_HASH) ocaml-spdx-licenses-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__ExceptionIDs) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__Lexer) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__LicenseIDs) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__Parser) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__Types) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__Array) ocaml(Stdlib__Either) ocaml(Stdlib__Int32) ocaml(Stdlib__Lexing) ocaml(Stdlib__List) ocaml(Stdlib__Obj) ocaml(Stdlib__Parsing) ocaml(Stdlib__Result) ocaml(Stdlib__Seq) ocaml(Stdlib__String) ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar) ocaml-spdx-licenses(x86-64) ocamlx(Spdx_licenses__ExceptionIDs) ocamlx(Spdx_licenses__Lexer) ocamlx(Spdx_licenses__LicenseIDs) ocamlx(Spdx_licenses__Parser) ocamlx(Stdlib) ocamlx(Stdlib__Array) ocamlx(Stdlib__Bytes) ocamlx(Stdlib__Lexing) ocamlx(Stdlib__List) ocamlx(Stdlib__Parsing) ocamlx(Stdlib__Result) ocamlx(Stdlib__String) Provides -------- ocaml-spdx-licenses: ocaml(Spdx_licenses) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__ExceptionIDs) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__Lexer) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__LicenseIDs) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__Parser) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__Types) ocaml-spdx-licenses ocaml-spdx-licenses(x86-64) ocaml-spdx-licenses-devel: ocaml(Spdx_licenses) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__ExceptionIDs) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__Lexer) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__LicenseIDs) ocaml(Spdx_licenses__Parser) ocaml-spdx-licenses-devel ocaml-spdx-licenses-devel(x86-64) ocamlx(Spdx_licenses) ocamlx(Spdx_licenses__) ocamlx(Spdx_licenses__ExceptionIDs) ocamlx(Spdx_licenses__Lexer) ocamlx(Spdx_licenses__LicenseIDs) ocamlx(Spdx_licenses__Parser) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2297781 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic, Ocaml Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, fonts, Java, Haskell, R, PHP, SugarActivity 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=2297781 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202297781%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ 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
