https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871 Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #11 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- 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]: 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: "BSD 3-Clause License and/or ICU License", "Unknown or generated", "FSF All Permissive License", "ICU License", "ICU License [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libcanclock/2207871-libcanlock/licensecheck.txt [ ]: 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. [!]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30568 bytes in 12 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]: 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]: 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 canlock [ ]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libcanlock-3.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm libcanlock-devel-3.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm canlock-3.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm libcanlock-debuginfo-3.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm libcanlock-debugsource-3.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm libcanlock-3.3.1-1.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/tmpsh1a6la_')] checks: 32, packages: 6 canlock.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('mhp', '%description -l en_US mhp -> mph, mp, hp') canlock.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('hfp', '%description -l en_US hfp -> hf, hp, hep') libcanlock-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libcanlock-devel/secret_512bits == 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 47 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 8.1 s == Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libcanlock-debuginfo-3.3.1-1.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/tmpajcu1ut3')] checks: 32, packages: 1 == 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.5 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: 5 canlock.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('mhp', '%description -l en_US mhp -> mph, mp, hp') canlock.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('hfp', '%description -l en_US hfp -> hf, hp, hep') libcanlock-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libcanlock-devel/secret_512bits 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 44 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 7.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://micha.freeshell.org/libcanlock/src/libcanlock-3.3.1.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5acd6d59e1fdf2a8507887137cf7f3e862fec0c21cc079bba7068abf03e881d9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5acd6d59e1fdf2a8507887137cf7f3e862fec0c21cc079bba7068abf03e881d9 Requires -------- libcanlock (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libcanlock-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libcanlock(x86-64) libcanlock-hp.so.3()(64bit) libcanlock.so.3()(64bit) canlock (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcanlock.so.3()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libcanlock-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libcanlock-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libcanlock: libcanlock libcanlock(x86-64) libcanlock-hp.so.3()(64bit) libcanlock.so.3()(64bit) libcanlock-devel: libcanlock-devel libcanlock-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libcanlock-3) pkgconfig(libcanlock-hp-3) canlock: canlock canlock(x86-64) libcanlock-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libcanlock-debuginfo libcanlock-debuginfo(x86-64) libcanlock-hp.so.3.0.3-3.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libcanlock.so.3.1.0-3.3.1-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libcanlock-debugsource: libcanlock-debugsource libcanlock-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libcanclock/2207871-libcanlock/srpm/libcanlock.spec 2024-12-05 06:25:20.893963968 +0300 +++ /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/libcanclock/2207871-libcanlock/srpm-unpacked/libcanlock.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 + Name: libcanlock Version: 3.3.1 @@ -117,3 +127,12 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Dec 04 2024 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 3.3.1-1 +- update to 3.3.1 + +* Mon Jan 01 2024 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 3.3.0-2 +- Address review comments + +* Mon Jan 01 2024 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 3.3.0-1 +- initial build +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2207871 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) canlock package should probably explicitly require the main package to ensure license files are included. In principl it will be installed because of the library dependency, but it will not cause any problems to explicitly require the main library package, and would prevent license problems should there be some change in the dependencies. b) Koji build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126538998 c) Approved. Please fix (a) on import or explain why it should not be fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207871 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202207871%23c11 -- _______________________________________________ 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
