https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2421025
Peter Lemenkov <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <[email protected]> --- The package looks good enough, here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [-]: The source package does not include the text of the license(s) in its own file. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (MIT and LGPL-3.0-or-later). [x]: The licensing breakdown is documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format *autochangelog). [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: No 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(s). [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag expect for ix86. [x]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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. Please, consider that in the future. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (current Git snapshot). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [+/-]: Patches should link to upstream bugs/comments/lists. Consider reporting zlib-ng compatibility patch upstream. [-]: Sources are not verified with gpgverify (upstream does not publish signatures). [?]: I did not test if the 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 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: vipr-1.1^20251029.30f2951-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm vipr-1.1^20251029.30f2951-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpbgqiw3lz')] checks: 32, packages: 2 vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vipr2html vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprchk vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprchk_parallel vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprcomp vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprincomp vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprttn 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ^^^ Unfortunately we indeed do not have man-pages. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: vipr-debuginfo-1.1^20251029.30f2951-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpiisu6f0n')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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: 2 vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vipr2html vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprchk vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprchk_parallel vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprcomp vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprincomp vipr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary viprttn 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 29 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s ^^^ Likewise. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/scipopt/vipr/archive/30f2951d1e90e47afa821bdd1b12b82246656c42/vipr-30f2951.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bfd905e3378353b5f4e93ad2405c75feed0d477e0a74113496fb2d6e04ca7786 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bfd905e3378353b5f4e93ad2405c75feed0d477e0a74113496fb2d6e04ca7786 Requires -------- vipr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libclusol.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libgmpxx.so.4()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpfr.so.6()(64bit) libsoplex.so.8.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtbb.so.12()(64bit) libz-ng.so.2()(64bit) libz-ng.so.2(ZLIB_NG_2.0.0)(64bit) libz-ng.so.2(ZLIB_NG_2.1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- vipr: vipr vipr(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2421025 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, R, fonts, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH I don't see any issues so this package is ================ === APPROVED === ================ -- 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=2421025 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202421025%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ 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
