https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2332028 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- One could find some minor non-blocking issues but I don't see any big issues so here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ^^^ false positive - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/sfp-master See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ^^^ false positive ===== 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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package owns all directories that it creates. [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. [-]: No need for a separate 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. [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. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: No large documentation 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 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]: 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). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify. [x]: Package compiles and builds 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: sfp-master-1.0.5-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm sfp-master-1.0.5-1.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/tmpfwnw80sx')] checks: 32, packages: 2 sfp-master.src: E: spelling-error ('labelled', '%description -l en_US labelled -> labeled, la belled, la-belled') sfp-master.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('labelled', '%description -l en_US labelled -> labeled, la belled, la-belled') sfp-master.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/pixmaps/SFP-Master.png /usr/share/doc/sfp-master/html/write64.png 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 6 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for ru_RU.UTF-8. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for de_DE.UTF-8. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for es_ES.UTF-8. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for hu_HU.UTF-8. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for it_IT.UTF-8. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for pt_BR.UTF-8. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for uk_UA.UTF-8. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for zh_CN.UTF-8. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for ru_RU.UTF-8. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for de_DE.UTF-8. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for es_ES.UTF-8. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for hu_HU.UTF-8. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for it_IT.UTF-8. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for pt_BR.UTF-8. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for uk_UA.UTF-8. (none): W: unable to load spellchecking dictionary for zh_CN.UTF-8. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 sfp-master.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('labelled', '%description -l en_US labelled -> labeled, la belled, la-belled') sfp-master.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/pixmaps/SFP-Master.png /usr/share/doc/sfp-master/html/write64.png 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/bigbigmdm/SFP-Master/archive/refs/tags/v1.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 13d70c1016980f3e604c06cb882cd546aba90963376a9eadae015cb4f723ab8e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 13d70c1016980f3e604c06cb882cd546aba90963376a9eadae015cb4f723ab8e Requires -------- sfp-master (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.15)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- sfp-master: application() application(SFP-Master.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(io.github.bigbigmdm.sfp-master.metainfo.xml) sfp-master sfp-master(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2332028 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, Perl, Java, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH This package is ================ === APPROVED === ================ -- 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=2332028 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202332028%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
