https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927535
Tristan Cacqueray <tdecacqu(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tdecacqu(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Tristan Cacqueray <tdecacqu(a)redhat.com> ---
Note:
- I guess the crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl warning is related to
ghc-HsOpenSSL,
could this be fixed in the future?
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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.
[x]: 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 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 2 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]: 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]: 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the
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
-------
Checking: fbrnch-0.7.1-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
fbrnch-0.7.1-2.fc35.src.rpm
fbrnch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps,
repose
fbrnch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US srpms -> PMS
fbrnch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US copr -> corp, cope, cop
fbrnch.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/fbrnch
SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
fbrnch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps,
repose
fbrnch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US srpms -> PMS
fbrnch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US copr -> corp, cope, cop
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
warning: Found bdb_ro Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using
bdb_ro backend.
warning: Found bdb_ro Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using
bdb_ro backend.
fbrnch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps,
repose
fbrnch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US srpms -> PMS
fbrnch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US copr -> corp, cope, cop
fbrnch.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/bin/fbrnch
SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/fbrnch-0.7.1/fbrnch-0.7.1.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
fc281e0193b1686f395a5432bfbe9a0aa7513d900a99f4eebcbb1fc3521efa15
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
fc281e0193b1686f395a5432bfbe9a0aa7513d900a99f4eebcbb1fc3521efa15
Requires
--------
fbrnch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
bodhi-client
copr-cli
curl
fedpkg
git-core
koji
krb5-workstation
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit)
libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libffi.so.6()(64bit)
libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libssl.so.1.1()(64bit)
libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
openssh-clients
rpm-build
rpmdevtools
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
fbrnch:
fbrnch
fbrnch(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1927535
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, Python, Ocaml, Perl, R, fonts, Haskell, PHP,
SugarActivity
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