https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2275294 Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) | --- Comment #4 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- 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 - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'MIT AND Public Domain AND GPL-3.0-or- later'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 ===== 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: [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: "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". 520 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/mruby/2275294-mruby/srpm-unpacked/review- mruby/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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. [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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. 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.3.3.0()(64bit) mruby-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) mruby-devel(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) mruby-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): js-jquery mruby-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mruby-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mruby: libmruby.so.3.3.0()(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-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libmruby.so.3.3.0-3.3.0-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit) mruby-debuginfo mruby-debuginfo(x86-64) mruby-debugsource: mruby-debugsource mruby-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/mruby/2275294-mruby/srpm-unpacked/mruby.spec 2024-11-19 16:21:01.000000000 +0300 +++ /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/mruby/2275294-mruby/srpm-unpacked/review-mruby/srpm-unpacked/mruby.spec 2024-12-04 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global soversion %(echo '%{version}' | cut -f 1-2 -d '.') @@ -112,3 +122,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Dec 04 2024 John Doe <packager@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 3.3.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n mruby Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Thanks for the reminder, sorry for the delay. b) Consider changing Source0: https://github.com/mruby/mruby/archive/refs/tags/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz to Source: https://github.com/mruby/mruby/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz To match what is in the packaging guidelines. c) For easy use of mrbc, should the devel and static packages be combined with the main package? mrbc cannot be used without the development headers and it is expected that compiler packages will have development headers and static libraries. Alternatively mrbc perhaps could be put in the devel package or in a separate package? d) In the license listing change Public Domain to LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ -- 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=2275294 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202275294%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ 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
