https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835452
--- Comment #11 from Honggang LI <honli(a)redhat.com> ---
1 Package Review
2 ==============
3
4 Legend:
5 [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
6 [ ] = Manual review needed
7
8
9
10 ===== MUST items =====
11
12 C/C++:
13 [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
PASS
14 [ ]: Package contains no static executables.
PASS
15 [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
16 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
17 [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
18 [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
19
20 Generic:
21 [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets
22 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of
Packaging
23 Guidelines.
PASS
24 [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
25 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
26 found: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown
or
generated",
27 "GNU General Public License, Version 2". 11 files have unknown
28 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/test/1835452-mlxbf-
29 bootctl/licensecheck.txt
PASS
30 [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
PASS
31 [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
PASS
32 [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
PASS
33 [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
PASS
34 [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
PASS
35 [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
PASS
36 [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
PASS
37 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
PASS
38 [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
39 names).
PASS
40 [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
PASS
41 [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
PASS
42 [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
PASS
43 [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes
and
44 Provides are present.
PASS
45 [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
PASS
46 [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
PASS
47 [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
PASS
48 [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
PASS
49 [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
PASS. It is aarch64 specific package.
50 [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be
size
51 (~1MB) or number of files.
52 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
PASS
53 [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
PASS
54 [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least
55 one supported primary architecture.
56 [x]: Package installs properly.
57 [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
58 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
59 [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
60 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the
61 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
62 [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
63 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
64 [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
65 [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
66 [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at
the
67 beginning of %install.
68 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
69 [x]: Dist tag is present.
70 [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
71 [x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
72 [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
73 [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=...
doesn't
74 work.
75 [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
76 [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
77 [x]: Package is not relocatable.
78 [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
79 provided in the spec URL.
80 [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
81 %{name}.spec.
82 [x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
83 [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
84
85 ===== SHOULD items =====
86
87 Generic:
88 [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate
89 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include
it.
PASS
90 [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
PASS
91 [ ]: Package functions as described.
PASS
92 [ ]: Latest version is packaged.
PASS
93 [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
PASS
94 [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
95 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
PASS
96 [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
97 publishes signatures.
98 Note: gpgverify is not used.
PASS
99 [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
100 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
PASS
101 [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
PASS
102 [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
103 files.
PASS
104 [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
105 [x]: Buildroot is not present
106 [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
107 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
108 [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
109 [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
110 [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec
file
111 [x]: SourceX is a working URL.
112 [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
113 architectures.
114 [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
115
116 ===== EXTRA items =====
117
118 Generic:
119 [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
120 Note: No rpmlint messages.
121 [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
122 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
123 [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if
package
124 is arched.
125 [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
126
127
128 Rpmlint
129 -------
130 Checking: mlxbf-bootctl-1.1-6.fc33.aarch64.rpm
131 mlxbf-bootctl-debuginfo-1.1-6.fc33.aarch64.rpm
132 mlxbf-bootctl-debugsource-1.1-6.fc33.aarch64.rpm
133 mlxbf-bootctl-1.1-6.fc33.src.rpm
134 mlxbf-bootctl.aarch64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Mellanox ->
Melanoma
135 mlxbf-bootctl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Mellanox ->
Melanoma
136 mlxbf-bootctl.src: W: invalid-url Source0: mlxbf-bootctl-1.1.tar.gz
137 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
138
139
140
141
142 Rpmlint (debuginfo)
143 -------------------
144 Checking: mlxbf-bootctl-debuginfo-1.1-6.fc33.aarch64.rpm
145 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
146
147
148
149
150
151 Rpmlint (installed packages)
152 ----------------------------
153 mlxbf-bootctl-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/Mellanox/mlxbf-bootctl <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
154 mlxbf-bootctl-debugsource.aarch64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/Mellanox/mlxbf-bootctl <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
155 mlxbf-bootctl.aarch64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Mellanox ->
Melanoma
156 mlxbf-bootctl.aarch64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/Mellanox/mlxbf-bootctl <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
157 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
158
159
160
161 Requires
162 --------
163 mlxbf-bootctl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
164 ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit)
165 libc.so.6()(64bit)
166 rtld(GNU_HASH)
167
168 mlxbf-bootctl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
169
170 mlxbf-bootctl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
171
172
173
174 Provides
175 --------
176 mlxbf-bootctl:
177 mlxbf-bootctl
178 mlxbf-bootctl(aarch-64)
179
180 mlxbf-bootctl-debuginfo:
181 debuginfo(build-id)
182 mlxbf-bootctl-debuginfo
183 mlxbf-bootctl-debuginfo(aarch-64)
184
185 mlxbf-bootctl-debugsource:
186 mlxbf-bootctl-debugsource
187 mlxbf-bootctl-debugsource(aarch-64)
188
189
190
191 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
192 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1835452
193 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
194 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
195 Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, Ruby, Python, Java,
Ocaml, fonts, R, PHP
196 Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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