https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981103 Petr Dancak <pdancak@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #12 from Petr Dancak <pdancak@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Notes: The license is deprecated by this list of licenses: https://spdx.org/licenses/ RPMLINT failes for pihpsdr-debuginfo: "rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/pihpsdr-debuginfo-2.0.8~rc1\^20241105git7ad62180-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm" failes, probably because of naming RPMLINT 2 errors for pihpsdr-doc When I tried to start the app it just shows blank window and errors like: Failed to open file “hpsdr.png”: No such file or directory Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2+'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - RPMLINT failes for pihpsdr-doc, pihpsdr-debuginfo ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [!]: 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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 71 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/pihpsdr/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. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: 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]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: 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 8764 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [X]: 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. [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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: fail for pihpsdr-doc. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- 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: 1 pihpsdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pihpsdr pihpsdr.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2+ Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/pihpsdr-debuginfo-2.0.8~rc1\^20241105git7ad62180-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm (none): E: fatal error while reading RPMS/x86_64/pihpsdr-debuginfo-2.0.8~rc1^20241105git7ad62180-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm: 'utf-8' codec can't decode byte 0xe0 in position 444: invalid continuation byte When I tried to rename the RPM: rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/pihpsdr-debuginfo-2.0.8.fc42.x86_64 =========================================================================================================== 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: 1 Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 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 pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', 'Summary(en_US) linhpsdr -> linchpin') pihpsdr-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linhpsdr', '%description -l en_US linhpsdr -> linchpin') pihpsdr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pihpsdr pihpsdr.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2+ pihpsdr-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license GPLv2+ ====================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 8 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s ====================================================================== Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/g0orx/pihpsdr/archive/7ad62180e8073f7c243195a0ff8632bdfbdf3742/pihpsdr-7ad62180e8073f7c243195a0ff8632bdfbdf3742.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6cfc803d5251078c14682fddbe1ec3b7f2cd5c6dc5cc7c8d6062962b4520f83f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6cfc803d5251078c14682fddbe1ec3b7f2cd5c6dc5cc7c8d6062962b4520f83f Requires -------- pihpsdr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libSoapySDR.so.0.8()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpulse-mainloop-glib.so.0()(64bit) libpulse-mainloop-glib.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libpulse-simple.so.0()(64bit) libpulse-simple.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libpulse.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libwdsp.so.0.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) pihpsdr-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pihpsdr pihpsdr-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pihpsdr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pihpsdr: application() application(pihpsdr.desktop) pihpsdr pihpsdr(x86-64) pihpsdr-doc: pihpsdr-doc pihpsdr-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pihpsdr-debuginfo pihpsdr-debuginfo(x86-64) pihpsdr-debugsource: pihpsdr-debugsource pihpsdr-debugsource(x86-64) -- 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=1981103 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201981103%23c12 -- _______________________________________________ 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
