https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2465140
Benson Muite <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] --- Comment #11 from Benson Muite <[email protected]> --- 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]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/qcbor/2465140- qcbor/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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 46206 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: 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]: 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 qcbor- devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: qcbor-1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594.fc45.x86_64.rpm qcbor-devel-1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594.fc45.x86_64.rpm qcbor-1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594.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/tmpco36x38v')] checks: 32, packages: 3 qcbor.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: qcbor-git-618.0e81594.tar.gz qcbor.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.6.1 ['1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594.fc45', '1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594'] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: qcbor-debuginfo-1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594.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/tmpx9ivmnzd')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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 qcbor.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.6.1 ['1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594.fc45', '1.6.1-0.git.618.0e81594'] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 21 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Requires -------- qcbor (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) qcbor-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libqcbor.so.1()(64bit) qcbor(x86-64) Provides -------- qcbor: libqcbor.so.1()(64bit) qcbor qcbor(x86-64) qcbor-devel: cmake(qcbor) qcbor-devel qcbor-devel(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/qcbor/2465140-qcbor/srpm/qcbor.spec 2026-06-09 14:47:54.917774800 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/qcbor/2465140-qcbor/srpm-unpacked/qcbor.spec 2026-05-05 17:01:59.000000000 +0300 @@ -3,9 +3,9 @@ Name: qcbor Version: 1.6.1 -Release: 0%{?dist} +Release: 0.git.618.0e81594%{?dist} Summary: A CBOR encoder/decoder library URL: https://github.com/laurencelundblade/QCBOR License: BSD-3-Clause -Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz +Source0: qcbor-git-618.0e81594.tar.gz BuildRequires: cmake @@ -25,5 +25,5 @@ %prep -%setup -q -n QCBOR-%{version} +%setup -q -n qcbor-git-618.0e81594 %cmake -DBUILD_QCBOR_TEST=APP Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2465140 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, R, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please change %cmake -DBUILD_QCBOR_TEST=APP %build %cmake_build to %build %cmake -DBUILD_QCBOR_TEST=APP %cmake_build Configuration happens within the build step. b) Please add blank lines between changelog entries to make them more readable. It is also suggested to use %autochangelog and %autorelease to make updates easier. c) Not a must, but it may be helpful to package the documentation, Adding doxygen as a dependency, then in the build step use pushd doxygen doxygen popd should generate documentation files. These should be in a separate subpackage. Would suggest using Docbook format which can be opened by the program yelp, but examine the documentation to see if another format is better. HTML requires bundling javascript, so is not great. PDF bundles fonts - both are bigger in size than docbook. To generate docbook, change the entry in the doxyfile GENERATE_DOCBOOK. d) Please download the original source from the repository, ideally the latest release by changing Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz to Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Then apply any needed patches. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags e) For the devel package please change Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version} to Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} -- 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=2465140 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202465140%23c11 -- _______________________________________________ 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
