https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2526823
--- Comment #2 from Hannah Braswell <[email protected]> --- Package Review ============== Reviewer: Hannah Braswell <[email protected]> I have completed a review of BugZilla 2526823 using the guide at https://marcusburghardt.fedorapeople.org/complytime-providers-reviewer-guide.txt. I validated all criteria and inspected each output alongside the spec. I will set the the fedora-review+ flag to confirm my review. Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. Comment: validated the SPDX license expression using the command go_vendor_license --config ../go-vendor-tools.toml report expression. The output produced by the go_vendor_license: “Using detector: askalono Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND ISC AND MIT AND MPL-2.0.” [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 /root/work/2526823-complytime- providers/licensecheck.txt Comment: validated with licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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 [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2620 bytes in 1 files. [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. Comment: upstream repository matches Apache 2.0 license. [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 complytime-providers-openscap , complytime-providers-ampel , complytime-providers-opa [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [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: [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 Analysis (includes mandatory rpmlint output) ===================================================== All rpmlint messages are false positives or expected: - spelling-error (complyctl, gRPC, conftest) These are actual tool/protocol names. - no-binary on main package The main package holds only license files. Provider binaries are in sub-packages. This is the standard design for Go packages with multiple sub-packages sharing vendored licenses. - no-documentation on sub-packages Documentation (README.md) is in the main package. - invalid-url Source1 The vendor archive is generated locally by go_vendor_archive. Standard for Fedora Go packages using go-vendor-tools. - unused-direct-shlib-dependency libresolv.so.2 Go's net package links libresolv via cgo for DNS resolution. Same warning appeared in the complyctl review and was accepted. ------- Checking: complytime-providers-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.rpm complytime-providers-openscap-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.rpm complytime-providers-ampel-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.rpm complytime-providers-opa-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.rpm complytime-providers-0.2.1-1.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/tmpszrip8tk')] checks: 32, packages: 5 complytime-providers.src: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', 'Summary(en_US) complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers.src: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', '%description -l en_US complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers.src: E: spelling-error ('gRPC', '%description -l en_US gRPC -> grip') complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', 'Summary(en_US) complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', '%description -l en_US complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('gRPC', '%description -l en_US gRPC -> grip') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', 'Summary(en_US) complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', '%description -l en_US complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('gRPC', '%description -l en_US gRPC -> grip') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('conftest', '%description -l en_US conftest -> contest') complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', 'Summary(en_US) complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', '%description -l en_US complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('gRPC', '%description -l en_US gRPC -> grip') complytime-providers.spec: W: specfile-warning warning: /tmp/rpmlint.complytime-providers-0.2.1-1.fc46.src.rpm.qcwuq2a6/complytime-providers.spec line 87: autopatch: no matching patches in range complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: W: no-documentation complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: W: no-documentation complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: W: no-documentation complytime-providers.aarch64: E: no-binary complytime-providers.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: complytime-providers-0.2.1-vendor.tar.bz2 complytime-providers.aarch64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/complytime-providers/vendor/github.com/oklog/run/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/complytime-providers/LICENSE 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 14 errors, 6 warnings, 31 filtered, 14 badness; has taken 0.9 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: complytime-providers-openscap-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.rpm complytime-providers-ampel-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.rpm complytime-providers-opa-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.rpm complytime-providers-debuginfo-0.2.1-1.fc46.aarch64.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/tmp7cwpy_zw')] checks: 32, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 25 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 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: 8 complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/complytime/providers/complyctl-provider-openscap /lib64/libresolv.so.2 complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/complytime/providers/complyctl-provider-ampel /lib64/libresolv.so.2 complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/libexec/complytime/providers/complyctl-provider-opa /lib64/libresolv.so.2 complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', 'Summary(en_US) complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', '%description -l en_US complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('gRPC', '%description -l en_US gRPC -> grip') complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', 'Summary(en_US) complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', '%description -l en_US complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('gRPC', '%description -l en_US gRPC -> grip') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', 'Summary(en_US) complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('complyctl', '%description -l en_US complyctl -> comply') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('gRPC', '%description -l en_US gRPC -> grip') complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('conftest', '%description -l en_US conftest -> contest') complytime-providers-openscap.aarch64: W: no-documentation complytime-providers-ampel.aarch64: W: no-documentation complytime-providers-opa.aarch64: W: no-documentation complytime-providers.aarch64: E: no-binary complytime-providers.aarch64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/complytime-providers/vendor/github.com/oklog/run/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/complytime-providers/LICENSE 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 7 warnings, 55 filtered, 11 badness; has taken 0.6 s Step 7: Cross-package coordination ----------------------------------- This package requires complyctl >= 1.0.0 at runtime, but the current Fedora complyctl is at v0.0.8. Once this review is complete, both packages will be updated as a multi-build Bodhi update (complyctl v1.0.0 + this package). Users never see complyctl v1.0.0 without providers available. Note: the build succeeds without complyctl since it is a runtime dependency, not BuildRequires. Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2526823 -- 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=2526823 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202526823%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
