https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2373135
Gwyn Ciesla <gw...@protonmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Gwyn Ciesla <gw...@protonmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.
===== 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.
[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", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU
General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Free Documentation License
v1.3 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License". 13 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/gwyn/2373135-guile-commonmark/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/guile/3.0/site-ccache
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/guile/3.0,
/usr/lib64/guile, /usr/lib64/guile/3.0/site-ccache
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/guile(compat-
guile18, guile30, guile22, guile-reader-devel),
/usr/share/guile/site(compat-guile18, guile30, guile22, guile-reader-
devel), /usr/share/guile/site/3.0(guile-reader-devel, guile30)
[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.
[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.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 2567 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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 all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: guile-commonmark-0.1.2-1.20250616git538ffea.fc43.x86_64.rpm
guile-commonmark-0.1.2-1.20250616git538ffea.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/tmpwfifsxia')]
checks: 32, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.4 s
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.14/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: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/OrangeShark/guile-commonmark/archive/538ffea25ca69d9f3ee17033534ba03cc27ba468/guile-commonmark-538ffea25ca69d9f3ee17033534ba03cc27ba468.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
51ec6112ad21b47bcf5962f57c3fb8b2daf4bbf895cd83fc7fcac0f50e261375
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
51ec6112ad21b47bcf5962f57c3fb8b2daf4bbf895cd83fc7fcac0f50e261375
Requires
--------
guile-commonmark (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
guile-commonmark:
guile-commonmark
guile-commonmark(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2373135
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, Java, C/C++, Haskell,
fonts, Ruby, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
APPROVED
Might want to add a license breakdown.
--
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=2373135
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202373135%23c1
--
_______________________________________________
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
