https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2251506 wojnilowicz <lukasz.wojnilowicz@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo- |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from wojnilowicz <lukasz.wojnilowicz@xxxxxxxxx> --- Good job. I've been using your COPR, and was about to ask you for an offical package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= Some rpmlint issues: 1) browserpass-firefox.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mozilla-filesystem contains /usr/lib64/mozilla/native-messaging-hosts and it's the place where this json file should land, so I think it's ok. 2) browserpass-chromium.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/com.github.browserpass.native.json Could you do what "rpmlint -e non-conffile-in-etc" says? 3) browserpass-firefox.noarch: E: noarch-with-lib64 Please remove "BuildArch: noarch" from the firefox package. 4) browserpass.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary browserpass-native browserpass-native contains only two short switches, so I think it's fine without the manual, but if you would like then please create one. A reference at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-aw-core/blob/rawhide/f/python-aw-core.spec#_46 5) browserpass-chromium.noarch: W: no-documentation browserpass-firefox.noarch: W: no-documentation None intended. 6) browserpass.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Browserpass browserpass.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Browserpass Could you fix that? From what I see, you composed your own sentences. Could you use the one from the developer's website instead? ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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 [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License". 415 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/browserpass/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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Is there any reason why you use "%{_prefix}/%{_lib}/" instead "%{_libdir}"? For reference: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_multilib_exempt_locations [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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. %gometa -f used to exclude %ix86 [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 34745 bytes in 2 files. [x]: 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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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 browserpass-firefox , browserpass-chromium Please fix this. [?]: Package functions as described. browserpass-firefox untested. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: I believe this "Release: %autorelease -b 2" should be changed to this "Release: %autorelease" [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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. ===== 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: browserpass-3.1.0-7.fc40.x86_64.rpm browserpass-firefox-3.1.0-7.fc40.noarch.rpm browserpass-chromium-3.1.0-7.fc40.noarch.rpm browserpass-3.1.0-7.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpm170gpbs')] checks: 31, packages: 4 browserpass-firefox.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib browserpass-chromium.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts/com.github.browserpass.native.json browserpass-firefox.noarch: E: noarch-with-lib64 browserpass.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary browserpass-native browserpass-chromium.noarch: W: no-documentation browserpass-firefox.noarch: W: no-documentation browserpass.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Browserpass browserpass.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Browserpass 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: browserpass-debuginfo-3.1.0-7.fc40.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmp9oq55v76')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "browserpass". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "browserpass-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "browserpass-firefox". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "browserpass-chromium". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 4 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://maximbaz.com/pgp_keys.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e7eb51eea5ceca5003778edb31f791dee12435eaf1f13aadef865d5bf2bd6f01 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e7eb51eea5ceca5003778edb31f791dee12435eaf1f13aadef865d5bf2bd6f01 https://github.com/browserpass/browserpass-native/releases/download/3.1.0/browserpass-native-3.1.0-src.tar.gz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fce97aea0a5488921f4a7ab7d6bb3d7ec3ac6f8009fcc731124210e3fc56a104 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fce97aea0a5488921f4a7ab7d6bb3d7ec3ac6f8009fcc731124210e3fc56a104 https://github.com/browserpass/browserpass-native/releases/download/3.1.0/browserpass-native-3.1.0-src.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7ab92d04aa136c69d993e3c2d81ee2d395480ab6556be3d45f5694edcc8024b5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7ab92d04aa136c69d993e3c2d81ee2d395480ab6556be3d45f5694edcc8024b5 Requires -------- browserpass (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libresolv.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) browserpass-firefox (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): browserpass mozilla-filesystem browserpass-chromium (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): browserpass Provides -------- browserpass: browserpass browserpass(x86-64) browserpass-firefox: browserpass-firefox browserpass-chromium: browserpass-chromium Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name browserpass --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, R, Python, fonts, Perl, SugarActivity, 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=2251506 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202251506%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ 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
