https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2298838 Tomasz Torcz <tomek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #7 from Tomasz Torcz <tomek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi, some changes are needed: 1. Source: should be an URL, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ 2. LICENSE file should be included as %license, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text 3. See below for dependencies. % rpmlint web-eid.spec ============================================================== rpmlint session starts ============================================================== web-eid.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: web-eid-2.5.0.tar.gz % rpmlint web-eid-2.5.0-2.x86_64.rpm ============================================================== rpmlint session starts ============================================================== web-eid.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/web-eid web-eid.x86_64: E: unknown-key 36c1b62c # ignorable web-eid.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/eu.webeid.json web-eid.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/eu.webeid.json web-eid.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary web-eid web-eid.x86_64: W: no-documentation web-eid.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libstdc++ web-eid.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency openssl-libs web-eid.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency pcsc-lite-libs web-eid.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long The Web eID application performs cryptographic digital signing and authentication (E)rrors have to be corrected. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - gtk-update-icon-cache must not be invoked in %post and %posttrans for Fedora 26 and later. Note: icons in web-eid See: ===== 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. [!]: 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]: 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* Microsoft Reciprocal License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 212 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2298838-web- eid/licensecheck.txt [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/chromium, /usr/share/google-chrome, /etc/opt/chrome [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/chromium/native- messaging-hosts(gnome-browser-connector, webextension-gsconnect), /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts(gnome-browser-connector, webextension-gsconnect), /usr/lib64/mozilla/native-messaging- hosts(gnome-browser-connector, webextension-gsconnect, mozilla- filesystem, textern), /usr/share/google-chrome/extensions(fedora- chromium-config-gnome, fedora-chromium-config-kde) [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. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [?]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define debug_package %{nil} [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: web-eid-2.5.0-2.x86_64.rpm web-eid-2.5.0-2.src.rpm ============================================================== rpmlint session starts ============================================================== web-eid.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/web-eid web-eid.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/eu.webeid.json web-eid.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/eu.webeid.json web-eid.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary web-eid web-eid.x86_64: W: no-documentation web-eid.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: web-eid-2.5.0.tar.gz web-eid.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libstdc++ web-eid.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency openssl-libs web-eid.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency pcsc-lite-libs web-eid.src: E: description-line-too-long The Web eID application performs cryptographic digital signing and authentication web-eid.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long The Web eID application performs cryptographic digital signing and authentication ======================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 6 warnings, 11 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 1.2 s ========================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ checks: 32, packages: 1 web-eid.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/web-eid web-eid.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/eu.webeid.json web-eid.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts/eu.webeid.json web-eid.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary web-eid web-eid.x86_64: W: no-documentation web-eid.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libstdc++ web-eid.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency openssl-libs web-eid.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency pcsc-lite-libs web-eid.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long The Web eID application performs cryptographic digital signing and authentication 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 5 warnings, 5 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.2 s Requires -------- web-eid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Svg.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Svg.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libpcsclite.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++ 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_1.3.9)(64bit) mozilla-filesystem openssl-libs pcsc-lite-libs qt5-qtbase qt5-qtsvg rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- web-eid: application() application(web-eid.desktop) web-eid web-eid(x86-64) webextension-token-signing Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2298838 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, R, Haskell, 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=2298838 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202298838%23c7 -- _______________________________________________ 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
