https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920754
dan.cermak(a)cgc-instruments.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from dan.cermak(a)cgc-instruments.com ---
Looks good now except for one tiny typo: `anl` in line 10 should be a `and`.
Package approved, thanks for your work!
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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", "ISC License", "BSD 3-clause
"New" or
"Revised" License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified"
License". 10 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dan/fedora-
scm/1920754-opendoas/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.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: opendoas (description)
[-]: 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.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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: Source 3 is not passed to gpgverify.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: 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]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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: opendoas-6.8.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
opendoas-debuginfo-6.8.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
opendoas-debugsource-6.8.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
opendoas-6.8.1-1.fc34.src.rpm
opendoas.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudo -> suds, ludo,
sumo
opendoas.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase,
co-debase, code base
opendoas.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD
opendoas.x86_64: E: no-binary
opendoas.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/doas root 4755
opendoas.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/doas 4755
opendoas-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD
opendoas-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD
opendoas.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) doas -> doss, dos, donas
opendoas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doas -> doss, dos, donas
opendoas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudo -> suds, ludo, sumo
opendoas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase,
co-debase, code base
opendoas.src: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD
opendoas.src:25: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(libopenbsd)
opendoas.src:39: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 12 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: opendoas-debuginfo-6.8.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
opendoas-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
opendoas.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sudo -> suds, ludo,
sumo
opendoas.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codebase -> co debase,
co-debase, code base
opendoas.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD
opendoas.x86_64: E: no-binary
opendoas.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/doas root 4755
opendoas.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/doas 4755
opendoas-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD
opendoas-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license ISC anl BSD
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://xn--1xa.duncano.de/duncan.asc :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
f6bcc28324aa4ec31bf4fb1ac0f86d9dd6871d7d5a0d312a4d23847db1703de9
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
f6bcc28324aa4ec31bf4fb1ac0f86d9dd6871d7d5a0d312a4d23847db1703de9
https://github.com/Duncaen/OpenDoas/releases/download/v6.8.1/opendoas-6.8...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
05804bcc900244abc5b44adebc1f454ef6053e35d0a57988f26030a68e7eb38a
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
05804bcc900244abc5b44adebc1f454ef6053e35d0a57988f26030a68e7eb38a
https://github.com/Duncaen/OpenDoas/releases/download/v6.8.1/opendoas-6.8...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
fce3f5e3fd3e1287bdc5666abf3f433980b1c08e7381343c33ae3a8697d7c20c
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
fce3f5e3fd3e1287bdc5666abf3f433980b1c08e7381343c33ae3a8697d7c20c
Requires
--------
opendoas (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config(opendoas)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcrypt.so.2()(64bit)
libcrypt.so.2(XCRYPT_2.0)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
opendoas-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
opendoas-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
opendoas:
bundled(libopenbsd)
config(opendoas)
doas
opendoas
opendoas(x86-64)
opendoas-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
opendoas-debuginfo
opendoas-debuginfo(x86-64)
opendoas-debugsource:
opendoas-debugsource
opendoas-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1920754
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Python, Java, PHP, fonts, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml,
Perl
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