https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2357479
Ben Beasley <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #19 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- Ok, I’ll assign this review to myself. Thank you for working with upstream on the CC0-1.0 licensing. This package is looking pretty good now, but there are still a handful of details that need to be addressed. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Several files are licensed “GPL-2.0-only WITH Linux-syscall-note”: src/libpisp/backend/pisp_be_config.h src/libpisp/common/pisp_common.h src/libpisp/frontend/pisp_fe_config.h src/libpisp/frontend/pisp_statistics.h This is fine, because this is already on the allowed-licenses list, but it needs to be in the License expression (“BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-2.0-only WITH Linux-syscall-note”), preferably with a license-breakdown comment mentioning which files are which. ---- The LICENSE is a symbolic link to LICENSES/BSD-2-Clause.txt. This is fine, but you need to actually ship LICENSES/BSD-2-Clause.txt. As it is, the symbolic link is dangling and the required license text isn’t present. In addition to the BSD-2-Clause license text, which must be included per the license’s terms, and which is already shipped as LICENSE, there are other license texts in LICENSES/. The files LICENSES/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt and LICENSES/MIT.txt don’t seem to be needed, because I couldn’t find any files under either of these licenses. (There is GPLv2 code, but it is GPL-2.0-only WITH Linux-syscall-note.). Still, I suppose these files aren’t hurting anyone. On the other hand, LICENSES/GPL-2.0-only.txt and LICENSES/Linux-syscall-note.txt do pertain to code that contributes to the binary RPMs, so please include them as additional license files. I would probably just write: %license LICENSE LICENSES/ and optionally add to %prep: # These licenses do not actually apply to anything in the source: rm LICENSES/GPL-2.0-or-later.txt LICENSES/MIT.txt ---- I think this guideline is a little silly, as manually-maintained BR’s don’t seem like the best way to track down dependencies on header-only libraries, but since the json package is a header-only library, you must add BuildRequires: json-static instead of or in addition to json-devel. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries (If you are going to depend on json-devel, you might consider writing it as pkgconfig(nlohmann_json) to reflect how meson finds it, as recommended in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PkgConfigBuildRequires/.) ---- A few notes that might be helpful, but don’t require changes for approval: - There is no need to number the sole source file; Source0: could be just Source:. - Semantically, the %meson command fits well in RPM’s %conf section rather than in %build. We haven’t written guidelines for %conf yet, and it’s not supported in EPEL9’s rpm. - You might consider excluding i686, since it will certainly never be needed. # https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval ExcludeArch: %{ix86} ===== 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: [x]: 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", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2357479-libpisp/licensecheck.txt Several files are licensed GPL-2.0-only WITH Linux-syscall-note. License should be BSD-2-Clause AND GPL-2.0-only WITH Linux-syscall-note [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Only a dangling symlink is installed. The LICENSES/ directory is needed. [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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as mentioned) [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). [!]: 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. The LICENSE file is a dangling symlink to LICENSES/BSD-2-Clause.txt, and LICENSES/GPL-2.0-only.txt and LICENSES/Linux-syscall-note.txt should be included as well. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=149422312 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. The spec file properly builds and runs any tests that might be present, but upstream didn’t provide any. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 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: libpisp-1.7.0-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm libpisp-devel-1.7.0-1.fc46.x86_64.rpm libpisp-1.7.0-1.fc46.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/tmpk8i761tp')] checks: 32, packages: 3 libpisp.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/licenses/libpisp/LICENSE LICENSES/BSD-2-Clause.txt 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libpisp-debuginfo-1.7.0-1.fc46.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/tmpt6yit17a')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.10.0 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: 33, packages: 3 libpisp.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/licenses/libpisp/LICENSE LICENSES/BSD-2-Clause.txt 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/raspberrypi/libpisp/archive/v1.7.0/libpisp-1.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 45e3e0fa21f893d9edb6dae8118c5af6aaf74a9c9d5b8ed120a95531e0b13f2b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 45e3e0fa21f893d9edb6dae8118c5af6aaf74a9c9d5b8ed120a95531e0b13f2b Requires -------- libpisp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libboost_log.so.1.90.0()(64bit) libboost_thread.so.1.90.0()(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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libpisp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libpisp(x86-64) libpisp.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig(nlohmann_json) Provides -------- libpisp: libpisp libpisp(x86-64) libpisp.so.1()(64bit) libpisp-devel: libpisp-devel libpisp-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libpisp) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2357479 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, Python, Java, Perl, R 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=2357479 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202357479%23c19 -- _______________________________________________ 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
