https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2309679 --- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL (see above). See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verified that they are not in ld path. [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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", "PHP License v3.01", "*No copyright* PHP License v3.01". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/php-pecl- xpass/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [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 1970 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/php-pecl- xpass/srpm-unpacked/php-pecl-xpass.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. PHP: [-]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files. Note: phpcompatinfo not found. Install php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo package to get a more comprehensive php review. See: url: undefined -> Not applicable for this package from my understanding Rpmlint ------- Checking: php-pecl-xpass-1.0.0-1.fc42.8.3.x86_64.rpm php-pecl-xpass-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc42.8.3.x86_64.rpm php-pecl-xpass-debugsource-1.0.0-1.fc42.8.3.x86_64.rpm php-pecl-xpass-1.0.0-1.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/tmpdyxh2xhm')] checks: 32, packages: 4 php-pecl-xpass.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('libxcrypt', '%description -l en_US libxcrypt -> cryptically') php-pecl-xpass.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('yescrypt', '%description -l en_US yescrypt -> yes crypt, yes-crypt, typescript') php-pecl-xpass.src: E: spelling-error ('libxcrypt', '%description -l en_US libxcrypt -> cryptically') php-pecl-xpass.src: E: spelling-error ('yescrypt', '%description -l en_US yescrypt -> yes crypt, yes-crypt, typescript') php-pecl-xpass.spec: E: specfile-error sh: line 1: fg: no job control php-pecl-xpass.spec: E: specfile-error sh: line 1: fg: no job control php-pecl-xpass.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.0-1 ['1.0.0-1.fc42.8.3', '1.0.0-1.8.3'] 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 1 warnings, 18 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: php-pecl-xpass-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc42.8.3.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/tmp4ev96g9h')] 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) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "php-pecl-xpass". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "php-pecl-xpass-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "php-pecl-xpass-debuginfo". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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: 3 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- php-pecl-xpass: /usr/lib64/php/modules/xpass.so Source checksums ---------------- https://pecl.php.net/get/xpass-1.0.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 082a11742c027ccd908d4b3c2840595e733dd1a7c6f093e05e3b316027d1e105 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 949c772e4a0679f0edd5a7fc846b24b32fa59bca9c3cd26c82d93968cf631409 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- php-pecl-xpass (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(php-pecl-xpass) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2()(64bit) libcrypt.so.2(XCRYPT_2.0)(64bit) libcrypt.so.2(XCRYPT_4.3)(64bit) php(api) php(zend-abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) php-pecl-xpass-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): php-pecl-xpass-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- php-pecl-xpass: config(php-pecl-xpass) php-pecl(xpass) php-pecl(xpass)(x86-64) php-pecl-xpass php-pecl-xpass(x86-64) php-xpass php-xpass(x86-64) php-pecl-xpass-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) php-pecl-xpass-debuginfo php-pecl-xpass-debuginfo(x86-64) php-pecl-xpass-debugsource: php-pecl-xpass-debugsource php-pecl-xpass-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name php-pecl-xpass --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++, PHP Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, fonts, Python, Java, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity 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=2309679 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202309679%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ 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
