https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2310622 --- Comment #27 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Ok, 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: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/imsprog See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ^^^ I think this could be ignored. Your package installs files into the same directory where we install doc-files by default. ===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. See our analysis above. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x/!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec but I don't think it's a practical thing in this case. [x]: Package owns all directories that it creates (or depends on them). [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. [-]: No development files. [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. See our discussion about capitalization of the name above. [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 contain systemd file(s). [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: No extremely large documentation files. [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 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]: 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]: 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]: 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). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (1.4.3). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify (upstream does not publish signatures. [x]: Package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. See Copr builds mentioned above. [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]: 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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched but I don't think there is that much noarch data. [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). Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/bigbigmdm/IMSProg/archive/refs/tags/v1.4.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1c26c5aeb83116b4a519f60a5c35deda296b14a16134dbbad159f8f62964079 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1c26c5aeb83116b4a519f60a5c35deda296b14a16134dbbad159f8f62964079 Requires -------- imsprog (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash 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) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) imsprog-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): imsprog-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- imsprog: application() application(IMSProg.desktop) application(IMSProg_database_update.desktop) application(IMSProg_editor.desktop) imsprog imsprog(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(io.github.bigbigmdm.imsprog.metainfo.xml) metainfo(io.github.bigbigmdm.imsprog_database_update.metainfo.xml) metainfo(io.github.bigbigmdm.imsprog_editor.metainfo.xml) imsprog-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) imsprog-debuginfo imsprog-debuginfo(x86-64) imsprog-debugsource: imsprog-debugsource imsprog-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n /home/petro/rpmbuild/SRPMS/imsprog-1.4.3-1.fc40.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Java, Python, Haskell, R, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Ok, perhaps there are some other minor issues but we'd better deal with them later. This package is ================ === APPROVED === ================ You have a go! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odiMeEhfi9I -- 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=2310622 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202310622%23c27 -- _______________________________________________ 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
