https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2089042
Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |pemensik(a)redhat.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
CC| |pemensik(a)redhat.com
Status|NEW |POST
--- Comment #1 from Petr Menšík <pemensik(a)redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice:
/usr/share/cargo/registry/names-0.13.0/CHANGELOG.md
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_duplicate_files
===== 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", "MIT License", "*No
copyright* MIT
License". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/pihhan/fedora/review/2089042-rust-
names/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 without FPC exception.
[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.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 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]: 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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in names ,
rust-names-devel , rust-names+default-devel , rust-names+application-
devel , rust-names+clap-devel
[?]: 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]: %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 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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums
----------------
https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/names/0.13.0/download#/names-0.13.0.crate :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
e7d66043b25d4a6cccb23619d10c19c25304b355a7dccd4a8e11423dd2382146
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
e7d66043b25d4a6cccb23619d10c19c25304b355a7dccd4a8e11423dd2382146
Requires
--------
names (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(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)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
rust-names-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
(crate(rand/default) >= 0.8.4 with crate(rand/default) < 0.9.0~)
/usr/bin/sh
cargo
rust-names+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
cargo
crate(names)
crate(names/application)
rust-names+application-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
cargo
crate(names)
crate(names/clap)
rust-names+clap-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
(crate(clap/default) >= 3.1.5 with crate(clap/default) < 4.0.0~)
(crate(clap/derive) >= 3.1.5 with crate(clap/derive) < 4.0.0~)
cargo
crate(names)
rust-names-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
names:
names
names(x86-64)
rust-names-devel:
crate(names)
rust-names-devel
rust-names+default-devel:
crate(names/default)
rust-names+default-devel
rust-names+application-devel:
crate(names/application)
rust-names+application-devel
rust-names+clap-devel:
crate(names/clap)
rust-names+clap-devel
rust-names-debugsource:
rust-names-debugsource
rust-names-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2089042
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, Python, Perl, Java, R, Ocaml, Haskell,
SugarActivity, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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=2089042