https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2330823 Davide Cavalca <davide@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |davide@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #12 from Davide Cavalca <davide@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- 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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License, Version 3 and/or MIT License and/or Public domain and/or SIL Open Font License and/or W3C License and/or zlib License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Boost Software License 1.0", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Boost Software License 1.0 and/or Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 and/or Creative Commons CC0 1.0 and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Khronos License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "*No copyright* zlib License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License", "zlib License", "MIT License and/or The Unlicense", "*No copyright* CeCILL-C License", "Khronos License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense [generated file]". 378 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2330823-wivrn/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/openxr/1, /usr/share/openxr, /usr/lib/firewalld/services, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/lib/firewalld, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor [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. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 15318 bytes in 4 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 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]: systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun for Systemd user units service files. Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in wivrn [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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). [x]: 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. [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: [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 ------- Checking: wivrn-0.22-1.20241206gitv0.22.fc42.x86_64.rpm wivrn-0.22-1.20241206gitv0.22.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpvgph0p9v')] checks: 32, packages: 2 wivrn.src: E: spelling-error ('wirelessly', '%description -l en_US wirelessly -> tirelessly, wireless, relentlessly') wivrn.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('wirelessly', '%description -l en_US wirelessly -> tirelessly, wireless, relentlessly') wivrn.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wivrn-dashboard wivrn.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wivrn-server wivrn.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wivrnctl wivrn.x86_64: W: empty-%postun wivrn.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/wivrn/libmonado_wivrn.so 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 8 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.0 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- wivrn: /usr/lib64/wivrn/libmonado_wivrn.so wivrn: /usr/lib64/wivrn/libopenxr_wivrn.so Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/monado/monado/-/archive/aa2b0f9f1d638becd6bb9ca3c357ac2561a36b07/monado-src-aa2b0f9f1d638becd6bb9ca3c357ac2561a36b07.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d86693194417b76bd141c6f1a1adb29cd39d75059eb5f4bc5f252cc7d9db6e72 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d86693194417b76bd141c6f1a1adb29cd39d75059eb5f4bc5f252cc7d9db6e72 https://github.com/WiVRn/WiVRn/archive/v0.22/WiVRn-0.22.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e05e56f53ae7650eddbecf84a9a01decb73286a9b44e5ba29e446d9f1a958cb4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e05e56f53ae7650eddbecf84a9a01decb73286a9b44e5ba29e446d9f1a958cb4 Requires -------- wivrn (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh android-tools libGLX.so.0()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.8)(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6()(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Network.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libX11-xcb.so.1()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libavahi-client.so.3()(64bit) libavahi-common.so.3()(64bit) libavahi-glib.so.1()(64bit) libavcodec.so.61()(64bit) libavcodec.so.61(LIBAVCODEC_61)(64bit) libavutil.so.59()(64bit) libavutil.so.59(LIBAVUTIL_59)(64bit) libbsd.so.0()(64bit) libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.2)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcap.so.2()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libdrm.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmonado_wivrn.so.24()(64bit) libnotify.so.4()(64bit) libpipewire-0.3.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libsystemd.so.0()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_209)(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_221)(64bit) libvulkan.so.1()(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) libxcb-randr.so.0()(64bit) libxcb.so.1()(64bit) opencomposite rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- wivrn: application() application(io.github.wivrn.wivrn.desktop) bundled(monado) libmonado_wivrn.so.24()(64bit) libopenxr_wivrn.so()(64bit) libopenxr_wivrn.so(OPENXR)(64bit) metainfo() metainfo(io.github.wivrn.wivrn.metainfo.xml) wivrn wivrn(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2330823 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Ocaml, PHP, Python, Perl, Haskell 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=2330823 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202330823%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
