https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214386
Kalev Lember <klember(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |POST
Flags| |fedora-review+
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |klember(a)redhat.com
CC| |klember(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember <klember(a)redhat.com> ---
Fedora review rust-aes-siv-0.7.0-1.fc38.src.rpm 2023-07-02
$ rpmlint rust-aes-siv*
===================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
===================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/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: 31, packages: 9
rust-aes-siv+alloc-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-aes-siv+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-aes-siv+getrandom-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-aes-siv+heapless-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-aes-siv+pmac-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-aes-siv+std-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
rust-aes-siv+stream-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
==================================================== 9 packages and 0 specfiles
checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
====================================================
+ OK
! needs attention
+ rpmlint output looks good
+ The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the base package name.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
+ The license texts (Apache-2.0, MIT) are included in %license
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm
SHA512 (aes-siv-0.7.0.crate) =
e8be452c062dfd83d9147c6f05799e462e8732ca6fd04438da9619b9726d823a253bbc39251f1b71e271dc28644c9fcd90b36a95a5392b6c410b66548e10da83
SHA512 (Download/aes-siv-0.7.0.crate) =
e8be452c062dfd83d9147c6f05799e462e8732ca6fd04438da9619b9726d823a253bbc39251f1b71e271dc28644c9fcd90b36a95a5392b6c410b66548e10da83
+ Package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a locale handling
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all the directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files (CHANGELOG.md, LICENSE-APACHE, LICENSE-MIT,
README.md are listed twice but that's expected with the rust2rpm generator)
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect the runtime of application
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
+ Development files should be in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ Packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a Proper .desktop file handling
+ Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8
+ Package does not depend on deprecated packages
APPROVED
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214386
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...