https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2441933
Benson Muite <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Benson Muite <[email protected]> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD-3-Clause-Clear'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1585435 bytes in 126 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation ===== 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]: 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: 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 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "FSF All Permissive License", "MIT License". 386 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/oac/2441933-oac/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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: 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]: 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. [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 liboac , oac-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1761280 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: oac-0.0.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm liboac-0.0.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm oac-devel-0.0.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm oac-0.0.0-1.fc45.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/tmp4tqn6z29')] checks: 32, packages: 4 oac.src: E: spelling-error ('liboac', '%description -l en_US liboac -> lifeboat') oac.src: E: spelling-error ('bitstreams', '%description -l en_US bitstreams -> bit streams, bit-streams, streams') oac.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('liboac', '%description -l en_US liboac -> lifeboat') oac.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('bitstreams', '%description -l en_US bitstreams -> bit streams, bit-streams, streams') oac.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oac_compare oac.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oac_demo oac.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repacketizer_demo liboac.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause-Clear oac.src: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause-Clear oac.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause-Clear oac-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause-Clear 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 7 warnings, 28 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: oac-debuginfo-0.0.0-1.fc45.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/tmp0qareni6')] checks: 32, packages: 1 oac-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause-Clear 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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: 4 oac.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('liboac', '%description -l en_US liboac -> lifeboat') oac.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('bitstreams', '%description -l en_US bitstreams -> bit streams, bit-streams, streams') oac.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oac_compare oac.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oac_demo oac.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repacketizer_demo liboac.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause-Clear oac.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause-Clear oac-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause-Clear oac-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause-Clear 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings, 33 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/oac/archive/v0.0.0/oac-0.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 20224c044dbbe86aedb1644268b3d5df52e66e8c5ed68781939f4654bd8ecf13 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 20224c044dbbe86aedb1644268b3d5df52e66e8c5ed68781939f4654bd8ecf13 Requires -------- oac (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) liboac rtld(GNU_HASH) liboac (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) oac-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config liboac.so.0()(64bit) oac Provides -------- oac: oac oac(x86-64) liboac: liboac liboac(x86-64) liboac.so.0()(64bit) oac-devel: oac-devel oac-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(oac) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2441933 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, R, Ocaml, fonts, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please change %{_libdir}/liboac.so.0* to %{_libdir}/liboac.so.0{,.*} see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries b) Should the license be BSD-3-Clause-Clear AND BSD-3-Clause see https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/oac/blob/main/OPUS_LICENSE c) BSD-3-Clause-Clear is not listed at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ but the SPDX identifier is correct: https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-Clear.html BSD-3-Clause-Clear is in the not allowed list: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ but LicenseRef-BSD-3-Clause-Clear-WITH-AdditionRef-AOMPL-1.0 is on the allowed list Raised an issue upstream: https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/oac/issues/19 d) Consider putting documentation in a noarch subpackage, would suggest using docbook format as this does not require bundling javascript and the package size is smaller. Raised issue upstream: https://github.com/AOMediaCodec/oac/issues/20 e) There are files under BSD-2-Clause and MIT licenses. Are these included in the build? https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40fedora-review/fedora-review-2441933-oac/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10162063-oac/fedora-review/licensecheck.txt -- 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=2441933 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202441933%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ 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://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
