https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262546

Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/ROCmSoft | |warePlatform Keywords| |AutomationTriaged

--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6984010 (succeeded)

Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...

Please take a look if any issues were found.

--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262546

Sergey Bostandzhyan jin@mediatomb.cc changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #3 from Sergey Bostandzhyan jin@mediatomb.cc --- Tom,

as promised I went over it, below is the review text:

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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. [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", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0". 279 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jin/2262546-rccl/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. It _is_ known to require the ExcludeArch, is it a [-] or an [x] ? [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 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 7729 bytes in 1 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. Other applications can link to it, I do not yet know how to actually test the functionality. [x]: Latest version is packaged.

ROCmM 6.0.2 is now available, however in the context of ROCm 6.0.0 this is the latest version (it has also not changed for 6.0.2). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [?]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 10567680 bytes in /usr/share rccl- devel-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm:10557440

These are .xml files and it's not totally clear if they are required or optional, they are anyway in the -devel package so I'd say it's fine. Should we find out that these are some optional examples, we could further subpackage them separately.

[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: rccl-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rccl-devel-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rccl-debuginfo-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rccl-debugsource-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm rccl-6.0.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp1n7jtc05')] checks: 32, packages: 5

rccl.src: E: spelling-error ('xGMI', '%description -l en_US xGMI -> mix') rccl.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('xGMI', '%description -l en_US xGMI -> mix') rccl.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 30 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 8.1 s

Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rccl-debuginfo-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpgm_m5bzg')] checks: 32, packages: 1

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 4

rccl.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('xGMI', '%description -l en_US xGMI -> mix') rccl.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 27 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 2.3 s

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ROCmSoftwarePlatform/RCCL/archive/rocm-6.0.0.tar.gz#/RCCL... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0496d5a5f2e48c92cd390ab318df31a53cf7ec590988c2574c9f3d99c38b0fa7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0496d5a5f2e48c92cd390ab318df31a53cf7ec590988c2574c9f3d99c38b0fa7

Requires -------- rccl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6()(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_4.2)(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_4.5)(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_5.0)(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_5.3)(64bit) libamdhip64.so.6(hip_6.0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) librocm_smi64.so.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_1.3.7)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

rccl-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) librccl.so.1()(64bit) rccl(x86-64)

rccl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

rccl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- rccl: librccl.so.1()(64bit) rccl rccl(x86-64)

rccl-devel: cmake(rccl) rccl-devel rccl-devel(x86-64)

rccl-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) librccl.so.1.0-6.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit) rccl-debuginfo rccl-debuginfo(x86-64)

rccl-debugsource: rccl-debugsource rccl-debugsource(x86-64)

Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2262546 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, Python, Java, fonts, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262546

Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org

--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks for the preliminary review Sergey. Consider becoming a packager: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package... https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsore...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262546

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2017885 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2017885&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6984010 to 7040102

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262546

Tom Rix trix@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alexjnewt@fastmail.com

--- Comment #9 from Tom Rix trix@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rccl.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rccl-6.0.2-1.fc41.src.rpm

Split RCCL in a similar way as rocBLAS to overcome a problem with linking taking forever. Added an option test subpackage so the unit tests can be run.

This package is needed for the distributed feature of PyTorch, directly and through the gloo package.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262546

--- Comment #10 from Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@fastmail.com --- Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

Issues: ======= - A bunch of unowned directories need ownership, but this is actually a bug in the rocm-rpm-macros-modules package in my opinion (see MUST items below) - %dir %{_libdir}/rocm/gfx*/lib/cmake/%{name} should be a part of the devel package - I'm not sure if the algorithm xml files should be in devel or their own subpackage, but at the least, the datadir ownership should be in the same package, as right now it's in the main package but no files are installed in there. Generally the recommendation is to put large data files these in their own non-arch package. E.g. "%package data" and "%file data". This is so they can save server space if another arch is introduced later, since in theory, everything in datadir should be arch independent. I'm pretty sure it also speeds up the post package steps, since some things are skipped for noarch packages. My gut says to do a noarch subpackage for all of datadir since it's almost 11 MB. (see EXTRA items)

Non blockers: - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

Added automatically, you can ignore... we should get someone to fix this

- Please try to avoid or upstream these cmake patches if you can, they make upgrades very annoying (SHOULD item) - You might as well fix the "mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs" (rpmlint warning) - Maybe build the sphinx docs? See: https://github.com/ROCm/rccl/tree/develop#how-to-build-documentation

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: 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. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/cmake, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib, /usr/include, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/cmake, /usr/src/debug, /usr/share/doc, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/cmake, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib, /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib, /usr/lib64/rocm, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/src, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11, /usr, /usr/share, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/cmake, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8, /usr/lib, /usr/lib64 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/cmake, /usr/share/doc, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/cmake, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib, /usr/include, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/cmake, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/cmake, /usr/lib64/rocm, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8, /usr/lib, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/src, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10, /usr/lib64, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11, /usr/src/debug, /usr/lib64/cmake, /usr, /usr/share, /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib [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. [-]: 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 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 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 7729 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 10567680 bytes in /usr/share rccl- devel-6.0.2-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm:10557440 See:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Gui... [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: rccl-6.0.2-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm rccl-devel-6.0.2-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm rccl-debuginfo-6.0.2-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm rccl-debugsource-6.0.2-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm rccl-6.0.2-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpyt7gd9qm')] checks: 32, packages: 5

rccl.src: E: spelling-error ('xGMI', '%description -l en_US xGMI -> mix') rccl.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('xGMI', '%description -l en_US xGMI -> mix') rccl.x86_64: W: no-documentation rccl.spec:97: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 17, tab: line 97) rccl-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 5703116 rccl-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/cmake/rccl/rccl-config-version.cmake /usr/lib64/cmake/rccl/rccl-config-version.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/cmake/rccl/rccl-config-version.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/cmake/rccl/rccl-config-version.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/cmake/rccl/rccl-config-version.cmake rccl-devel.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib64/rocm/gfx9/lib/cmake/rccl/rccl-targets.cmake /usr/lib64/cmake/rccl/rccl-targets.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx10/lib/cmake/rccl/rccl-targets.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx11/lib/cmake/rccl/rccl-targets.cmake:/usr/lib64/rocm/gfx8/lib/cmake/rccl/rccl-targets.cmake 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 162 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 7.2 s

Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rccl-debuginfo-6.0.2-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpgp7gabpm')] checks: 32, packages: 1

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 18 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262546

--- Comment #12 from Tom Rix trix@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rccl.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/rccl-6.0.2-1.fc41.src.rpm

Fixed: Added %dir's Removed tabs Created noarch -data

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262546

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rccl