https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290393 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is exactly as generated by rust2rpm with no configuration file, greatly simplifying the review. A newer version is available; notes on that are in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290393#c2. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/ravif-0.11.5/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files This is not a serious problem; if it should be fixed, then it should be fixed in rust2rpm. ===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2290393-rust-ravif/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. $ rpm -qL -p results/rust-ravif-devel-0.11.5-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /usr/share/cargo/registry/ravif-0.11.5/LICENSE [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. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [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 rust- ravif-devel , rust-ravif+default-devel , rust-ravif+asm-devel [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass – although there is only one enabled test shipped in the crate!) [!]: Latest version is packaged. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290393#c2 [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. I started a build in COPR to check this, but I got tired of waiting for COPR builders after about 20 minutes and gave up. I’ll follow up here if the build ends up failing. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/music/ravif/builds/ [x]: %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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rust-ravif-devel-0.11.5-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-ravif+default-devel-0.11.5-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-ravif+asm-devel-0.11.5-1.fc41.noarch.rpm rust-ravif-0.11.5-1.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/tmpkn9zyf4o')] checks: 32, packages: 4 rust-ravif+asm-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cavif', '%description -l en_US cavif -> cavil') rust-ravif+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cavif', '%description -l en_US cavif -> cavil') rust-ravif.src: E: spelling-error ('cavif', '%description -l en_US cavif -> cavil') rust-ravif-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cavif', '%description -l en_US cavif -> cavil') rust-ravif+asm-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-ravif+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation ====================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 17 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.4 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 rust-ravif+default-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cavif', '%description -l en_US cavif -> cavil') rust-ravif-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cavif', '%description -l en_US cavif -> cavil') rust-ravif+asm-devel.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cavif', '%description -l en_US cavif -> cavil') rust-ravif+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-ravif+asm-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 13 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/ravif/0.11.5/download#/ravif-0.11.5.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bc13288f5ab39e6d7c9d501759712e6969fcc9734220846fc9ed26cae2cc4234 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bc13288f5ab39e6d7c9d501759712e6969fcc9734220846fc9ed26cae2cc4234 Requires -------- rust-ravif-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(avif-serialize/default) >= 0.8.1 with crate(avif-serialize/default) < 0.9.0~) (crate(imgref/default) >= 1.9.4 with crate(imgref/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(loop9/default) >= 0.1.3 with crate(loop9/default) < 0.2.0~) (crate(quick-error/default) >= 2.0.1 with crate(quick-error/default) < 3.0.0~) (crate(rav1e) >= 0.7.0 with crate(rav1e) < 0.8.0~) (crate(rav1e/threading) >= 0.7.0 with crate(rav1e/threading) < 0.8.0~) (crate(rayon/default) >= 1.7.0 with crate(rayon/default) < 2.0.0~) (crate(rgb/default) >= 0.8.36 with crate(rgb/default) < 0.9.0~) cargo rust-ravif+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(ravif) crate(ravif/asm) rust-ravif+asm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(rav1e/asm) >= 0.7.0 with crate(rav1e/asm) < 0.8.0~) cargo crate(ravif) Provides -------- rust-ravif-devel: crate(ravif) rust-ravif-devel rust-ravif+default-devel: crate(ravif/default) rust-ravif+default-devel rust-ravif+asm-devel: crate(ravif/asm) rust-ravif+asm-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2290393 -L ravif-deps/ Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, PHP, C/C++, Java, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Python, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Built with local dependencies: /home/ben/fedora/review/ravif-deps/rust-loop9+default-devel-0.1.5-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/ravif-deps/rust-loop9-devel-0.1.5-1.fc41.noarch.rpm -- 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=2290393 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202290393%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
