https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2312237 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The spec file is exactly as generated by rust2rpm, greatly simplifying the review. Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/gufo- jpeg-0.1.3/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files This is due to reasonable choices in rust2rpm and is not a serious problem. ===== 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2312237-rust-gufo-jpeg/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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- gufo-jpeg-devel , rust-gufo-jpeg+default-devel [?]: Package functions as described. The tests are correctly built and executed, but the package does not include any. The source code appears consistent with the description of what the package is supposed to do. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. Since this package depends on rust-gufo-common, I could not do a koji scratch build directly, and I did not bother spinning up a COPR just to test this. Since file format implementations are exactly the sort of thing that tends to have endianness bugs, I did do a local mock build for s390x using qemu-user-static emulation, but this was nearly useless since there are no tests in this crate. The package does *compile and build* on all supported architectures, but if there are endianness issues, they are likely to show up in the tests of a higher-level crate. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. The tests are correctly built and executed, but the package does not include any. [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-gufo-jpeg-devel-0.1.3-1.fc42.noarch.rpm rust-gufo-jpeg+default-devel-0.1.3-1.fc42.noarch.rpm rust-gufo-jpeg-0.1.3-1.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/tmp2nuu_ayt')] checks: 32, packages: 3 rust-gufo-jpeg+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-gufo-jpeg-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation ===================================================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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: 2 rust-gufo-jpeg-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-gufo-jpeg+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/gufo-jpeg/0.1.3/download#/gufo-jpeg-0.1.3.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 91cc69894bf1a6c6cf2276cdecef43d4bfdfd6cefec756204d93677cd7a177fd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 91cc69894bf1a6c6cf2276cdecef43d4bfdfd6cefec756204d93677cd7a177fd Requires -------- rust-gufo-jpeg-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (crate(gufo-common/default) >= 0.1.0 with crate(gufo-common/default) < 0.2.0~) (crate(tracing/default) >= 0.1.0 with crate(tracing/default) < 0.2.0~) cargo rust rust-gufo-jpeg+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(gufo-jpeg) Provides -------- rust-gufo-jpeg-devel: crate(gufo-jpeg) rust-gufo-jpeg-devel rust-gufo-jpeg+default-devel: crate(gufo-jpeg/default) rust-gufo-jpeg+default-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L gufo-jpeg-deps/ -b 2312237 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Built with local dependencies: /home/ben/fedora/review/gufo-jpeg-deps/rust-gufo-common+default-devel-0.1.3-1.fc42.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/gufo-jpeg-deps/rust-gufo-common-devel-0.1.3-1.fc42.noarch.rpm /home/ben/fedora/review/gufo-jpeg-deps/rust-gufo-common+serde-devel-0.1.3-1.fc42.noarch.rpm -- 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=2312237 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202312237%23c1 -- _______________________________________________ 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
