https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2399600
Fedor Vorobev <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(solomoncyj@gmail. | |com) | |needinfo?(solomoncyj@gmail. | |com) | |needinfo?(solomoncyj@gmail. | |com) | --- Comment #27 from Fedor Vorobev <[email protected]> --- LGTM. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "Boost Software License 1.0". 303 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fvorobev/Work/reviews/2399600-sol2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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. [-]: 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: 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]: 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.Tested [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sol2-devel , sol2-devel-docs NOTE: There's only a -devel package and sol2-devel-docs is a noarch package, so not applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. NOTE: Tested a sample program from the upstream README.md. [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. NOTE: Upstream does not provide signatures. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. NOTE: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=140772162 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. NOTE: Testing is disabled, justification comment present. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: 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: sol2-devel-3.5.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm sol2-devel-docs-3.5.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm sol2-3.5.0-1.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/tmpgolsq1xe')] checks: 32, packages: 3 sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/lua_value.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/metatable_key.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/table_traversal_keys.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/yielding.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/licenses.rst.txt sol2.spec: W: no-%check-section sol2-devel-docs.noarch: E: devel-dependency sol2-devel 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings, 12 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 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.tomlsol2-devel-docs checks: 32, packages: 2 sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/lua_value.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/metatable_key.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/table_traversal_keys.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/api/yielding.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sol2/sphinx/_sources/licenses.rst.txt sol2-devel-docs.noarch: E: devel-dependency sol2-devel 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings, 8 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ThePhD/sol2/archive/v3.5.0/sol2-3.5.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 86c0f6d2836b184a250fc2907091c076bf53c9603dd291eaebade36cc342e13c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 86c0f6d2836b184a250fc2907091c076bf53c9603dd291eaebade36cc342e13c Requires -------- sol2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem lua-devel sol2-devel-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sol2-devel Provides -------- sol2-devel: cmake(sol2) pkgconfig(sol2) sol2-devel sol2-devel(x86-64) sol2-devel-docs: sol2-devel-docs Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2399600 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Java, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Perl, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity 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=2399600 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202399600%23c27 -- _______________________________________________ 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
