https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2399640
--- Comment #15 from [email protected] --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #14) > 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. > [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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", > "Apache License 2.0 and/or Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No > copyright* Apache License", "Apache License 2.0". 185 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/ruyi/2399640- > ruyi/licensecheck.txt > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/ruyi > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/ruyi, > /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [x]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. > [ ]: 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 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 9063 bytes in 1 files. > [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local > > Python: > [-]: 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. > [ ]: 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). > [ ]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) > %{?-p:0.}%{lua: > [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. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: ruyi-0.41.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm > ruyi-0.41.0-1.fc44.src.rpm > ============================ 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 > rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxmljf0wg')] > checks: 32, packages: 2 > > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 > badness; has taken 0.8 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, 6 filtered, 0 > badness; has taken 0.5 s > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/ruyisdk/ruyi/archive/0.41.0/ruyi-0.41.0.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > f4c5f9ea9fab0819626e90d0c6922613b5593273757c88265c420a54a2a90924 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > f4c5f9ea9fab0819626e90d0c6922613b5593273757c88265c420a54a2a90924 > > > Requires > -------- > ruyi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > (python3.14dist(argcomplete) < 4~~ with python3.14dist(argcomplete) >= 2) > (python3.14dist(jinja2) < 4~~ with python3.14dist(jinja2) >= 3) > (python3.14dist(requests) < 3~~ with python3.14dist(requests) >= 2) > /usr/bin/python3 > python(abi) > python3.14dist(arpy) > python3.14dist(fastjsonschema) > python3.14dist(packaging) > python3.14dist(pygit2) > python3.14dist(pyyaml) > python3.14dist(rich) > python3.14dist(semver) > python3.14dist(tomlkit) > > > > Provides > -------- > ruyi: > python3.14dist(ruyi) > python3dist(ruyi) > ruyi > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2399640 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python > Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, R, PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++, fonts, Haskell, > Ocaml > Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH > > Comments: > a) Koji build: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=137796746 > b) To ensure directories are owned, please add > %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/ > before > %{_datadir}/%{name}/config.toml > c) Approved. Please fix (b) before import. Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2399640 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202399640%23c15 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
