https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2301387 --- Comment #5 from Jonathon Hyde <siliconwaffle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > ===== 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. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated". 28 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/kloak/2301387-kloak/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. > [ ]: 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. > [x]: 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]: 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]: 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and > systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. > Note: Systemd service file(s) in kloak > [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). > [ ]: 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. > [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [ ]: 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: > [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). > Note: No rpmlint messages. > [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: kloak-0.2^20230925g9cbdf44-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm > kloak-debuginfo-0.2^20230925g9cbdf44-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm > kloak-debugsource-0.2^20230925g9cbdf44-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm > kloak-0.2^20230925g9cbdf44-1.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/tmp2s8m_36r')] > checks: 32, packages: 4 > > kloak.src: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) anonymization > -> randomization, canonization, minimization') > kloak.src: E: spelling-error ('biometrics', '%description -l en_US > biometrics -> bio metrics, bio-metrics, cliometrics') > kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) > anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization') > kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('biometrics', '%description -l en_US > biometrics -> bio metrics, bio-metrics, cliometrics') > ================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, > 23 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 4.7 s =================== > > > > > Rpmlint (debuginfo) > ------------------- > Checking: kloak-debuginfo-0.2^20230925g9cbdf44-1.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/tmpdbgk109h')] > checks: 32, packages: 1 > > ================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, > 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.9 s =================== > > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No > such file or directory > /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No > such file or directory > /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No > such file or directory > ============================ 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 > > kloak.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/sbin/kloak > /lib64/libm.so.6 > kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('anonymization', 'Summary(en_US) > anonymization -> randomization, canonization, minimization') > kloak.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('biometrics', '%description -l en_US > biometrics -> bio metrics, bio-metrics, cliometrics') > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 21 filtered, 2 > badness; has taken 4.9 s > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/vmonaco/kloak/archive/ > 9cbdf4484da19eb09653356e59ce42c37cecb523/kloak- > 9cbdf4484da19eb09653356e59ce42c37cecb523.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > edaba1dc8ebfa265c2e503a88af542eecc8650304f21ca4e9ad4e1396020ff45 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > edaba1dc8ebfa265c2e503a88af542eecc8650304f21ca4e9ad4e1396020ff45 > > > Requires > -------- > kloak (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /bin/sh > libc.so.6()(64bit) > libevdev.so.2()(64bit) > libevdev.so.2(LIBEVDEV_1)(64bit) > libm.so.6()(64bit) > libsodium.so.26()(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > systemd > > kloak-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > kloak-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > > > Provides > -------- > kloak: > kloak > kloak(x86-64) > > kloak-debuginfo: > debuginfo(build-id) > kloak-debuginfo > kloak-debuginfo(x86-64) > > kloak-debugsource: > kloak-debugsource > kloak-debugsource(x86-64) > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2301387 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api > Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, SugarActivity, Python, PHP, Ocaml, R, Haskell, > fonts > Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH > > Comments: > a) Sorry for the delay in getting to this. Can review, but cannot sponsor. > Information on getting sponsored: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/ > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/ > How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/ > > A list of possible sponsors: > https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/ > > If you have many packages, you will find it helpful to also review other > peoples packages in exchange for a review of your packages. > b) Builds on all architectures: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=124309779 > c) As you are using %autorelease consider also using %autochangelog > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs > Otherwise you may also want to manage the release field manually > d) Happy to approve once point c is resolved. The review is appreciated, I have an updated spec which is much better but it's also for a fork and not the original project. The original maintainer no longer maintains kloak for unknown reasons, so I've pivoted to packaging the Whonix fork here: https://github.com/Whonix/kloak. I hope that's okay? I will update everything here soon with the new spec and srpm. -- 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=2301387 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202301387%23c5 -- _______________________________________________ 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
