https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354862 Ondřej Budai <obudai@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Ondřej Budai <obudai@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thank you for the changes, LGTM! There's a SHA mismatch for the sources, but I suppose this will get fixed when packit takes care of the releases. (I suppose you are going to use it as all other osbuild/* packages do). Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 67 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/koji-image-builder/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages/koji_cli_plugins/__pycache__, /usr/lib/koji-hub- plugins/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages/koji_cli_plugins, /usr/lib/koji-hub-plugins, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 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 1655 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/koji-image- builder/srpm-unpacked/koji-image-builder.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: koji-image-builder-1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm koji-image-builder-hub-1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm koji-image-builder-builder-1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm koji-image-builder-cli-1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm koji-image-builder-1-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpzsu40jlc')] checks: 32, packages: 5 koji-image-builder-builder.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib koji-image-builder-hub.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib koji-image-builder-builder.noarch: W: no-documentation koji-image-builder-cli.noarch: W: no-documentation koji-image-builder-hub.noarch: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 31 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "koji-image-builder". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "koji-image-builder-cli". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "koji-image-builder-builder". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "koji-image-builder-hub". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/osbuild/koji-image-builder/archive/v1/koji-image-builder-1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 953b4ceee90dda654f16d961df4fb90a16a2c584490864d682dd6222afb2ca2a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 13940d467e8823e7525279bf759cc26982b27a1fe4d5bf1f292b8a597988dd6d However, diff -r shows no differences Requires -------- koji-image-builder (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): koji-image-builder-hub (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): koji-hub koji-hub-plugins koji-image-builder python3-jsonschema koji-image-builder-builder (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 koji-builder koji-builder-plugins koji-image-builder koji-image-builder-cli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): koji-cli koji-cli-plugins koji-image-builder python(abi) Provides -------- koji-image-builder: koji-image-builder koji-image-builder-hub: koji-image-builder-hub koji-image-builder-builder: koji-image-builder-builder koji-image-builder-cli: koji-image-builder-cli Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name koji-image-builder --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, R, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2354862 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202354862%23c9 -- _______________________________________________ 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
