https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2315970 Jos de Kloe <josdekloe@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |josdekloe@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Jos de Kloe <josdekloe@xxxxxxxxx> --- I was to late to take this review, but since I am interested in having this one packaged I looked at it anyway. Here are my first findings: (preliminary) Package Review ============== Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. ==>the desktop file is install with a regular install command - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/ar/LC_MESSAGES/FvwmScript.mo See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ===== 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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. ==>the source code contains files with a number of different licenses (fortunately I think they are all allowed by Fedora) So I think this should be reflected in the License field. "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", fvwm3-1.1.0/fvwm/screen.h "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License", fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/tree.h fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/queue.h fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/cJSON.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/cJSON.h fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/golang.org/x/sys/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/abiosoft/ishell/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/abiosoft/readline/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/fatih/color/LICENSE.md fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/mattn/go-colorable/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/mattn/go-isatty/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/sirupsen/logrus/LICENSE fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/sirupsen/logrus/alt_exit.go "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/flynn-archive/go-shlex/COPYING fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/github.com/flynn-archive/go-shlex/shlex.go ISC License fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/asprintf.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/log.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcat.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcat.h fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcpy.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strlcpy.h fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strtonum.c fvwm3-1.1.0/libs/strtonum.h [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. ==> it seems fvwm3-1.1.0/bin/FvwmPrompt/vendor/ contains some bundled go libraries These should be unbundled or an FPC exception is needed I think. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. There is a Requires for sendmail but I don't see any reference to sendmail in the source code. If this really is needed could you point out where it is used? [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 82868 bytes in 2 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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 Perl: [!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. There are perl files in fvwm3-1.1.0/perllib but thre is no Requires or BuildRequires for perl ===== 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. ==>I have not tried this yet. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. there is no check section Also upstream does not provide tests, but maybe if we can think of some useful tests we could suggest some? [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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: ==>manual run of rpmlint gives this output: rpmlint fvwm3-1.1.0-1.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 checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s rpmlint fvwm3-1.1.0-1.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 checks: 32, packages: 1 fvwm3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fvwm-convert-2.6 fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/ar/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/da/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/es/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/ru/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/sv_SE/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo fvwm3.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/fvwm3/locale/zh_CN/LC_MESSAGES/fvwm.mo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: ==>manual run of rpmlint gives this output: rpmlint fvwm3-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm (none): E: fatal error while reading fvwm3-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm: 'utf-8' codec can't decode byte 0xbe in position 444: invalid start byte Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm3/archive/1.1.0/fvwm3-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c119fcc666d2cae281322aaf3578bfb9beed2d6d0383bd71073e29ea90a0f53b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c119fcc666d2cae281322aaf3578bfb9beed2d6d0383bd71073e29ea90a0f53b Requires -------- fvwm3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/mimeopen /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/sh /usr/sbin/sendmail libICE.so.6()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXcursor.so.1()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXft.so.2()(64bit) libXpm.so.4()(64bit) libXrandr.so.2()(64bit) libXrender.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libevent-2.1.so.7()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfribidi.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) libreadline.so.8()(64bit) librsvg-2.so.2()(64bit) python3-pyxdg rtld(GNU_HASH) xdg-utils xlockmore xterm fvwm3-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fvwm3-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- fvwm3: fvwm3 fvwm3(x86-64) fvwm3-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) fvwm3-debuginfo fvwm3-debuginfo(x86-64) fvwm3-debugsource: fvwm3-debugsource fvwm3-debugsource(x86-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: fvwm3-1.1.0-build/fvwm3-1.1.0/configure.ac:22 Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2315970 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Perl, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, R, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2315970 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202315970%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ 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
