https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310390 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Looks very clean and straightforward. I see only a couple of issues. * The first one is mostly cosmetic - lack of versioning in a %changelog. At least rpmlint doesn't like it - please address it before uploading. * Regarding 2nd one I'm not sure so I do not consider it as a blocker. Please report upstream that rpmlint believes that the final library is linked against libraries it does not use (see rpmlint messages below). Perhaps it's the false positive, perhaps not - I do not know a lot about Fortran libraries internals to say for certain. I can't find any other issues so here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed 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 is a false positive. We do have gcc-gfortran as a build dependency listed. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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 (Apache 2.0). [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package owns all directories that it creates. [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 does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [x]: Development files placed 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. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contains systemd file(s). [x]: 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]: 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 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 4119 bytes in 1 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). [-]: Not necessary to have a fully versioned dependency in subpackages. [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (0.3.0). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify (upstream does not publish signatures). [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: mstore-0.3.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm mstore-devel-0.3.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm mstore-debuginfo-0.3.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm mstore-debugsource-0.3.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm mstore-0.3.0-1.fc42.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/tmp0egtvdjm')] checks: 32, packages: 5 mstore.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog mstore.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog mstore-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog mstore-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog mstore-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ^^^ See my note at the top of my comment. mstore.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mstore-info mstore-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation =================================================================================================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings, 37 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 s =================================================================================================== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: mstore-debuginfo-0.3.0-1.fc42.x86_64.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/tmptw4zaqxs')] checks: 32, packages: 1 mstore-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog =================================================================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 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-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: 4 mstore.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/mstore-info /lib64/libm.so.6 mstore.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/mstore-info /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 mstore.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmstore.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 mstore.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmstore.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 ^^^ Please report upstream about it. Can we get rid of these or these are also false positives? mstore-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog mstore.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog mstore-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog mstore-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ^^^ See my note at the top of my comment. mstore.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mstore-info mstore-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings, 35 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/grimme-lab/mstore/archive/v0.3.0/mstore-0.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 56b3d778629eb74b8a515cd53c727d04609f858a07f8d3555fd5fd392a206dcc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 56b3d778629eb74b8a515cd53c727d04609f858a07f8d3555fd5fd392a206dcc Requires -------- mstore (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5()(64bit) libgfortran.so.5(GFORTRAN_8)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmctc-lib.so.0()(64bit) libmstore.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) mstore-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libmstore.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(mctc-lib) mstore-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mstore-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mstore: libmstore.so.0()(64bit) mstore mstore(x86-64) mstore-devel: mstore-devel mstore-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(mstore) mstore-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libmstore.so.0.3.0-0.3.0-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit) mstore-debuginfo mstore-debuginfo(x86-64) mstore-debugsource: mstore-debugsource mstore-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2310390 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Python, R, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH 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=2310390 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202310390%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
