https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354972
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.an...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.an...@gmail.com> ---
That looks good to me. XXX APPROVED XXX
- A new version was released a couple of weeks ago. Please do update before
import.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.
===== 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]: 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.
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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright*
Boost Software License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT
License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or Boost Software License 1.0",
"*No copyright* zlib License". 444 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-
reviews/2354972-units-llnl/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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.13,
/usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages
[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]: 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 66917 bytes in 6 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 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in units-
llnl-devel , python3-units-llnl
^
These lines are there, false positive.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
^
A new version was released a couple of weeks ago. Please update before import.
[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]: 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: units-llnl-0.13.0-2.fc43.x86_64.rpm
units-llnl-devel-0.13.0-2.fc43.x86_64.rpm
python3-units-llnl-0.13.0-2.fc43.x86_64.rpm
units-llnl-0.13.0-2.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
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/tmpujs9koqf')]
checks: 32, packages: 4
units-llnl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary units_convert
units-llnl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 29 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.4 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: units-llnl-debuginfo-0.13.0-2.fc43.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
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/tmp6_epg8f7')]
checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ 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: 4
units-llnl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary units_convert
units-llnl-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 39 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.4 s
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-units-llnl:
/usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/units_llnl/units_llnl_ext.abi3.so
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/LLNL/units/archive/v0.13.0/units-0.13.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
7d6e8bfb59085448eff093d009dbbe45ea3ddca31f9fcb290fde49b141a87227
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
7d6e8bfb59085448eff093d009dbbe45ea3ddca31f9fcb290fde49b141a87227
Requires
--------
units-llnl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
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)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
libunits.so.0()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
units-llnl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
libunits.so.0()(64bit)
units-llnl(x86-64)
python3-units-llnl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
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)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(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_1.3.9)(64bit)
libunits.so.0()(64bit)
python(abi)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
units-llnl(x86-64)
Provides
--------
units-llnl:
libunits.so.0()(64bit)
units-llnl
units-llnl(x86-64)
units-llnl-devel:
cmake(units)
units-llnl-devel
units-llnl-devel(x86-64)
python3-units-llnl:
python-units-llnl
python3-units-llnl
python3-units-llnl(x86-64)
python3.13-units-llnl
python3.13dist(units-llnl)
python3dist(units-llnl)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2354972-units-llnl/srpm/units-llnl.spec
2025-04-28 14:32:01.993537286 +0100
+++
/home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2354972-units-llnl/srpm-unpacked/units-llnl.spec
2025-04-11 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -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 = 2;
+ 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
+
%global pypi_name units-llnl
%bcond python 1
@@ -130,3 +140,18 @@
%changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Fri Apr 11 2025 Sandro <de...@penguinpee.nl> - 0.13.0-2
+- Clarify third party sources and replace header
+
+* Tue Apr 08 2025 Sandro <de...@penguinpee.nl> - 0.13.0-1
+- Update to 0.13.0
+
+* Tue Mar 25 2025 Sandro <de...@penguinpee.nl> - 0.12.3-3
+- Add Python module using shared lib
+
+* Tue Mar 25 2025 Sandro <de...@penguinpee.nl> - 0.12.3-2
+- Fix build of shared library and tests
+
+* Sun Mar 23 2025 Sandro <de...@penguinpee.nl> - 0.12.3-1
+- Initial package
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/sbin/fedora-review -b 2354972
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: PHP, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, 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=2354972
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202354972%23c13
--
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
