https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2389251
Cristian Le <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Cristian Le <[email protected]> --- LGTM, only minor comments > # Check debian/copyright for a detailed list The Readme also has a very good breakdown of these, can maybe point to it and add it in the `%license`? > Backport some upstream improvements to the Makefile Do you have some links to those? > Requires: hicolor-icon-theme Can add the standard note that this is needed because for directory ownership > README.md says simply "MIT license or GPL". Can raise the issue to make it more explicit? Also see some notes in the review checklist --- 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 and/or MIT License", "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 and/or Creative Commons CC0 1.0 and/or MIT License". 211 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/cle/FedoraRPMs/2389251-davegnukem/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. (Technically fails when only `davegnukem-data` is installed) [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be 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. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. (missing the note for `hicolor-icon-theme`) [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 55207 bytes in 3 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]: 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 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in davegnukem-data (Main note is the license part) [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. (Patch providence) [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. (only tests are for the desktip files) [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: davegnukem-1.0.3-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm davegnukem-data-1.0.3-2.fc45.noarch.rpm davegnukem-1.0.3-2.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/tmpc_6f_8vu')] checks: 32, packages: 3 davegnukem-data.noarch: E: spelling-error ('et', '%description -l en_US et -> ET, wt, rt') davegnukem-data.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cetera', '%description -l en_US cetera -> terrace, lacerate, macerate') davegnukem.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/davegnukem/COPYING 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.9 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: davegnukem-debuginfo-1.0.3-2.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/tmp5x3mguli')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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: 3 davegnukem-data.noarch: E: spelling-error ('et', '%description -l en_US et -> ET, wt, rt') davegnukem-data.noarch: E: spelling-error ('cetera', '%description -l en_US cetera -> terrace, lacerate, macerate') davegnukem.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/davegnukem/COPYING 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/davidjoffe/dave_gnukem/archive/1.0.3/dave_gnukem-1.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2dbf00fcdb9aeeb7caaf0eb7403d34af33e3c08556d9376ae5f9c9c5647afd98 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2dbf00fcdb9aeeb7caaf0eb7403d34af33e3c08556d9376ae5f9c9c5647afd98 https://github.com/davidjoffe/gnukem_data/archive/1.0.3/gnukem_data-1.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : af0601ae1898b4718e8a2d62900a3ab1aa11113d60b64d03dd59ef945217333f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : af0601ae1898b4718e8a2d62900a3ab1aa11113d60b64d03dd59ef945217333f https://raw.githubusercontent.com/davidjoffe/dave_gnukem/72d05572ef3dbdff9d317df686f44e73a18bc340/debian/appstream/com.djoffe.davegnukem.metainfo.xml : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a7752f2876e17f51ffa45b49bae252ee8988bdc587076a3e2e2c54a5c150d575 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a7752f2876e17f51ffa45b49bae252ee8988bdc587076a3e2e2c54a5c150d575 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/davidjoffe/dave_gnukem/72d05572ef3dbdff9d317df686f44e73a18bc340/debian/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/davegnukem.png : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 669c90470f93ba5237e94b1b1b59d1f9c84227d451d99324f63237bfd0a206f7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 669c90470f93ba5237e94b1b1b59d1f9c84227d451d99324f63237bfd0a206f7 Requires -------- davegnukem (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): davegnukem-data libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libSDL2_mixer-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) davegnukem-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme Provides -------- davegnukem: application() application(davegnukem.desktop) davegnukem davegnukem(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(com.djoffe.davegnukem.metainfo.xml) davegnukem-data: davegnukem-data Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2389251 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, R, Java 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=2389251 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202389251%23c7 -- _______________________________________________ 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
