https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275294 Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx CC| |benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file md_LICENSE.html is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== 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]: 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: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Kevlin Henney License and/or Public domain", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Kevlin Henney License and/or MIT License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Kevlin Henney License". 520 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/mruby/2275294-mruby/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/mruby [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: mruby-static. [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 4308 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mruby- devel , mruby-static [ ]: 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. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define soversion %(echo '%{version}' | cut -f 1-2 -d '.') [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 10260480 bytes in /usr/share mruby- doc-3.3.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm:10229760 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mruby/mruby/archive/refs/tags/3.3.0.tar.gz#/mruby-3.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 53088367e3d7657eb722ddfacb938f74aed1f8538b3717fe0b6eb8f58402af65 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 53088367e3d7657eb722ddfacb938f74aed1f8538b3717fe0b6eb8f58402af65 Requires -------- mruby (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) mruby-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmruby.so.3.3()(64bit) mruby-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) mruby-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): js-jquery mruby-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mruby-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mruby: libmruby.so.3.3()(64bit) mruby mruby(x86-64) mruby-devel: mruby-devel mruby-devel(x86-64) mruby-static: mruby-static mruby-static(x86-64) mruby-doc: mruby-doc mruby-doc(x86-64) mruby-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libmruby.so.3.3-3.3.0-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit) mruby-debuginfo mruby-debuginfo(x86-64) mruby-debugsource: mruby-debugsource mruby-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2275294 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, Python, Java, Ocaml, Perl, R, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125214237 b) There are a number of other license files: *No copyright* Public domain ---------------------------- mruby-3.3.0-build/mruby-3.3.0/mrbgems/mruby-bigint/README-fgmp.md mruby-3.3.0-build/mruby-3.3.0/src/fmt_fp.c mruby-3.3.0-build/mruby-3.3.0/src/readfloat.c GNU General Public License v3.0 or later ---------------------------------------- mruby-3.3.0-build/mruby-3.3.0/mrbgems/mruby-compiler/core/y.tab.c Kevlin Henney License --------------------- mruby-3.3.0-build/mruby-3.3.0/mrbgems/mruby-dir/src/Win/dirent.c Kevlin Henney License and/or MIT License ---------------------------------------- mruby-3.3.0-build/mruby-3.3.0/mrbgems/mruby-dir/README.md Kevlin Henney License and/or Public domain ------------------------------------------ mruby-3.3.0-build/mruby-3.3.0/LEGAL c) Consider changing %{_docdir}/%{name}/html to %dir %{_docdir}/%{name} %{_docdir}/%{name}/html or %{_docdir}/%{name}/ d) Static and devel packages should require main package e) Please change %define soversion %(echo '%{version}' | cut -f 1-2 -d '.') to %global soversion %(echo '%{version}' | cut -f 1-2 -d '.') -- 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=2275294 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202275294%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
