https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2305346 Lukas Javorsky <ljavorsk@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(mschorm@xxxxxxxxx | |m) --- Comment #12 from Lukas Javorsky <ljavorsk@xxxxxxxxxx> --- ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 and/or JSON License", "Boost Software License 1.0 and/or Public domain", "Public domain", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 and/or NTP License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or JSON License and/or MIT License", "zlib License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "BSD 3-Clause License [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Boost Software License 1.0", "Boost Software License 1.0 [generated file]", "NTP License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "The Perl 5 License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Boost Software License 1.0 and/or NTP License", "Boost Software License 1.0 and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 and/or Public domain", "Boost Software License 1.0 and/or MIT License and/or X11 License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Boost Software License 1.0 and/or zlib License". 23466 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/mysql8.4/licensecheck.txt [ ]: 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. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/logrotate.d [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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [?]: 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in mysql8.4-server [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 1233 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. ===== 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mysql8.4-libs , mysql8.4-common , mysql8.4-errmsg , mysql8.4-devel , mysql8.4-test-data [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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [?]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define majorversion %(echo %{package_version} | cut -d'.' -f1-2 ), %define conflict_with_other_streams() %{expand:Provides: %{majorname}%{?1:-%{1}}-anyConflicts: %{majorname}%{?1:-%{1}}-any}, %define mysqlX_if_default() %{expand:Provides: mysql%{majorversion}%{?1:-%{1}} = %{sameevr}Provides: mysql%{majorversion}%{?1:-%{1}}%{?_isa} = %{sameevr}}, %define mysqlX_if_default() %{nil}, %define add_metadata() %{expand:%conflict_with_other_streams %{**}%mysqlX_if_default %{**}} [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. #### My comments and questions > Issues: > ======= > - 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. > Note: License file alter_allow_copying.result is not marked as %license > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text The `alter_allow_copying.result` file is part of the testsuite and can be ignored. > [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see > attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. > Unversioned so-files > -------------------- > mysql8.4-server: /usr/lib64/mysql/plugin/adt_null.so ..... These libraries are not visible to the dynamic linker (verified using ldconfig -p) > [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Is it still necessary to include the `ExcludeArch: %{ix86}` [1]? [1] https://gitlab.com/mschorm/centos_rpms_mysql8.4/-/blob/c10s/mysql8.4.spec?ref_type=heads#L1 > [?]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > Note: %define requiring justification: %define majorversion %(echo > %{package_version} | cut -d'.' -f1-2 ), %define > conflict_with_other_streams() %{expand:Provides: > %{majorname}%{?1:-%{1}}-anyConflicts: %{majorname}%{?1:-%{1}}-any}, > %define mysqlX_if_default() %{expand:Provides: > mysql%{majorversion}%{?1:-%{1}} = %{sameevr}Provides: > mysql%{majorversion}%{?1:-%{1}}%{?_isa} = %{sameevr}}, %define > mysqlX_if_default() %{nil}, %define add_metadata() > %{expand:%conflict_with_other_streams %{**}%mysqlX_if_default %{**}} Is the %define justified? It looks like it’s not redefined anywhere in the spec, so I believe you could use the %global. I'm going to review the licenses, which may take more time so I'm providing first feedback, so you might respond to the questions. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2305346 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202305346%23c12 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
