https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317848 --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- 1. Rpmlint insists that licensing breakdown must be provided. Honestly I don't see it as a blocker but looks like * forked samurai, tinyjson, and memmem.c are licensed under MIT * sha_256 is under Unlicense * the rest of source code is under GPLv3 * tests artifacts are either under ASL 2.0 or not specified 2. Also please find out why these two tests are failing. I'd have a meson drop-in replacement which passes all the tests.\ 3. Adjust whitespaces/tabs. Remove double whitespaces. A cosmetic issue, not a big deal. Apart from that I don't see any other issues so here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/muon See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ^^^ Another one reason for renaming. Even if the package was retired I believe it's better to avoid confusion. ===== 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]: 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 (Apache-2.0 AND GPL-3.0-only AND MIT AND Unlicense). [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Please add it. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. It has some forked ones but we don't have them packaged. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: No extra development files. [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. See my note about naming in comment #4. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: The package does not contain systemd file(s). [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: 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 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). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (0.3.1). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify in %prep (upstream does not publish signatures). [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present but not all tests pass. See comment in the spec-file. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: muon-0.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm muon-0.3.1-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpy8t4b_zn')] checks: 32, packages: 2 muon.spec:43: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 43) muon.spec:39: W: macro-in-comment %{_vpath_builddir} muon.spec:39: W: macro-in-comment %{_vpath_builddir} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ^^^ I guess macro-in-comment will go away when %check section will be fixed. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: muon-debuginfo-0.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp3e4n8883')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://git.sr.ht/~lattis/meson-tests/archive/1e565931.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f45d46dc751a19aa1dc4b2ff7b23bfd87468d8f11e162a7d217d927b9e49ce96 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f45d46dc751a19aa1dc4b2ff7b23bfd87468d8f11e162a7d217d927b9e49ce96 https://git.sr.ht/~lattis/muon/archive/0.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 14b175b29c4390a69c1d9b5758b4689f0456c749822476af67511f007be2e503 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 14b175b29c4390a69c1d9b5758b4689f0456c749822476af67511f007be2e503 Requires -------- muon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libarchive.so.13()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libpkgconf.so.5()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- muon: muon muon(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2317848 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, PHP, fonts, Perl, Java 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=2317848 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202317848%23c7 -- _______________________________________________ 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
