https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880722
Stefano Figura <stef...@figura.im> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Stefano Figura <stef...@figura.im> ---
- ACCEPT
- LGTM
Reviewer Note:
This SHOULD item is partially failing due to a test beinig disabled as it
"fails with floating point accuracy issues":
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0) or MIT license".
3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/var/home/returntrip/devel/packaging/reviews/1880722-rust-
pathfinder_simd/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
pathfinder_simd-devel , rust-pathfinder_simd+default-devel , rust-
pathfinder_simd+pf-no-simd-devel
[?]: 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]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rust-pathfinder_simd-devel-0.5.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
rust-pathfinder_simd+default-devel-0.5.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
rust-pathfinder_simd+pf-no-simd-devel-0.5.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
rust-pathfinder_simd-0.5.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
rust-pathfinder_simd-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US simd
-> dims, SIDS
rust-pathfinder_simd-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
https://crates.io/crates/pathfinder_simd HTTP Error 404: Not Found
rust-pathfinder_simd-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-pathfinder_simd-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/cargo/registry/pathfinder_simd-0.5.0/.cargo-checksum.json
rust-pathfinder_simd+default-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US simd -> dims, SIDS
rust-pathfinder_simd+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
https://crates.io/crates/pathfinder_simd HTTP Error 404: Not Found
rust-pathfinder_simd+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-pathfinder_simd+pf-no-simd-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
https://crates.io/crates/pathfinder_simd HTTP Error 404: Not Found
rust-pathfinder_simd+pf-no-simd-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-pathfinder_simd.src: W: invalid-url URL:
https://crates.io/crates/pathfinder_simd HTTP Error 404: Not Found
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb
backend.
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb
backend.
rust-pathfinder_simd+default-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US simd -> dims, SIDS
rust-pathfinder_simd+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
https://crates.io/crates/pathfinder_simd <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary
failure in name resolution>
rust-pathfinder_simd+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb
backend.
rust-pathfinder_simd+pf-no-simd-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
https://crates.io/crates/pathfinder_simd <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary
failure in name resolution>
rust-pathfinder_simd+pf-no-simd-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb
backend.
rust-pathfinder_simd-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US simd
-> dims, SIDS
rust-pathfinder_simd-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
https://crates.io/crates/pathfinder_simd <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary
failure in name resolution>
rust-pathfinder_simd-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-pathfinder_simd-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/cargo/registry/pathfinder_simd-0.5.0/.cargo-checksum.json
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/pathfinder_simd/0.5.0/download#/pathfinder_simd-0.5.0.crate
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
b451513912d6b3440e443aa75a73ab22203afedc4a90df8526d008c0f86f7cb3
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
b451513912d6b3440e443aa75a73ab22203afedc4a90df8526d008c0f86f7cb3
Requires
--------
rust-pathfinder_simd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
(crate(rustc_version/default) >= 0.2.0 with crate(rustc_version/default) <
0.3.0)
cargo
rust-pathfinder_simd+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
cargo
crate(pathfinder_simd)
rust-pathfinder_simd+pf-no-simd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
cargo
crate(pathfinder_simd)
Provides
--------
rust-pathfinder_simd-devel:
crate(pathfinder_simd)
rust-pathfinder_simd-devel
rust-pathfinder_simd+default-devel:
crate(pathfinder_simd/default)
rust-pathfinder_simd+default-devel
rust-pathfinder_simd+pf-no-simd-devel:
crate(pathfinder_simd/pf-no-simd)
rust-pathfinder_simd+pf-no-simd-devel
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -o --enablerepo local -b 1880722
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
