https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2493789
--- Comment #3 from [email protected] --- Can you explain this ? bazelisk.spec:34: E: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag x86_64 aarch64 # 2026/06/26 21:18:25 unsupported machine architecture "ppc64le", must be arm64 or x86_64 BuildArch: x86_64 aarch64 ExclusiveArch: x86_64 aarch64 I expected ExclusiveArch, but not the BuildArch. Why do you need the BuildArch ? It would be ok to say upstream only has x86_64 and aarch64 https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/releases/tag/9.1.1 license review part of the fedorareview does not provide useful output, %check has a license check section and this agrees with my use of go2rpm and second look with some local ai. Non blocking issues Make sure of your specfile in the srpm. The Spec URL: bazelisk.spec what I reviewed, it is fine. Some nice to haves. Please add comment something like go2rpm -p vendor -v 1.29.0 --name bazelisk github.com/bazelbuild/bazelisk I was expecting /usr/bin/bazel when I was trying out the package, maybe add a symlink to /usr/bin/bazelisk Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /sfs/fedora-review/review- bazelisk/licensecheck.txt something missfired in the license checker, both local and in the bz. Here is what ai says.. The license review has been completed and saved to /tmp/license-review.txt. Here's a summary: Key Findings Main Package: Bazelisk - License: Apache License 2.0 ✓ (permissive) - Status: Fully compliant with standard permissive open source Dependencies (6 vendors, all identified): ┌──────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────┐ │ Dependency │ License │ Permissive? │ ├──────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────┤ │ bgentry/go-netrc │ MIT │ ✓ Yes │ ├──────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────┤ │ gofrs/flock │ BSD-3-Clause │ ✓ Yes │ ├──────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────┤ │ hashicorp/go-version │ Mozilla Public License 2.0 │ ⚠ No (weak-copyleft) │ ├──────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────┤ │ mitchellh/go-homedir │ MIT │ ✓ Yes │ ├──────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────┤ │ golang.org/x/crypto │ BSD-3-Clause │ ✓ Yes │ ├──────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────┤ │ golang.org/x/sys │ BSD-3-Clause │ ✓ Yes │ ├──────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────┤ │ golang.org/x/term │ BSD-3-Clause │ ✓ Yes │ └──────────────────────┴────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────┘ Exceptions: 1. go-version uses MPL-2.0 — This is a weak-copyleft license, not strictly permissive like MIT/Apache. Modifications to the MPL-covered files themselves must remain under MPL-2.0 and be source-available. Files that merely link to it are not affected. 2. Contributor license agreement (CLA) is required for contributions (Google's standard CLA), but this only applies to contributors, not to downstream users. No proprietary or non-standard licenses were found. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Justification noted in spec, ppc has problems. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 17919 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]: 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: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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 Please add comment something like go2rpm -p vendor -v 1.29.0 --name bazelisk github.com/bazelbuild/bazelisk [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. I md5sum-ed my go2rpm generated sources against those in the SRPM, they agree. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: bazelisk-1.29.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm bazelisk-1.29.0-1.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/tmpj9l4uw9e')] checks: 32, packages: 2 bazelisk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bazelisk bazelisk.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: bazelisk-1.29.0-vendor.tar.bz2 bazelisk.spec:34: E: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag x86_64 aarch64 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: bazelisk-debuginfo-1.29.0-1.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/tmp18m7kn7a')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 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: 2 bazelisk.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/bazelisk /lib64/libresolv.so.2 bazelisk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bazelisk 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 15 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazelisk/archive/v1.29.0/bazelisk-1.29.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7e4c7b8ade016052e63c1553cb4fbe0c4fe921e1e66913d49eef074ed894e933 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7e4c7b8ade016052e63c1553cb4fbe0c4fe921e1e66913d49eef074ed894e933 Requires -------- bazelisk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libresolv.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- bazelisk: bazelisk bazelisk(x86-64) bundled(golang(github.com/bgentry/go-netrc)) bundled(golang(github.com/gofrs/flock)) bundled(golang(github.com/hashicorp/go-version)) bundled(golang(github.com/mitchellh/go-homedir)) bundled(golang(golang.org/x/crypto)) bundled(golang(golang.org/x/sys)) bundled(golang(golang.org/x/term)) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /sfs/fedora-review/bazelisk.spec 2026-06-26 14:47:15.000000000 -0700 +++ /sfs/fedora-review/review-bazelisk/srpm-unpacked/bazelisk.spec 2026-06-25 17:00:00.000000000 -0700 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.4) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Generated by go2rpm 1.19.0 %bcond check 1 @@ -59,3 +69,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Fri Jun 26 2026 John Doe <[email protected]> - 1.29.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n bazelisk Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, R, Perl, Python, C/C++, Ocaml, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2493789 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202493789%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://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
