https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2348783 Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) | --- Comment #9 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Issues: ======= - Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Bundled gnulib but no Provides: bundled(gnulib) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "FSF All Permissive License", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License and/or GNU Lesser General Public License [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU Free Documentation License v1.3 or later", "*No copyright* FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License and/or GNU Lesser General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later and/or ISC License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 189 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/gnuastro/2348783- gnuastro/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/gnuastro, /usr/share/info/gnuastro- figures, /usr/share/gnuastro [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/gnuastro, /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures, /usr/share/gnuastro [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [ ]: 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. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: 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 280085 bytes in 3 files. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3717120 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnuastro-0.23-2.fc43.x86_64.rpm gnuastro-devel-0.23-2.fc43.x86_64.rpm gnuastro-0.23-2.fc43.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_ajngxrq')] checks: 32, packages: 3 gnuastro.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary astscript-color-faint-gray gnuastro-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation gnuastro.spec: W: no-%check-section gnuastro.spec:50: W: macro-in-comment %check gnuastro.spec:51: W: macro-in-comment %meson_test gnuastro.x86_64: E: info-dir-file /usr/share/info/dir gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/color-names.pdf.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/color-names.png.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/epicycles.png.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/flatplane.pdf.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/flatplane.png.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/gnuastro.pdf.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/iandtime.pdf.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/iandtime.png.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/samplingfreq.pdf.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/samplingfreq.png.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/sphereandplane.pdf.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/sphereandplane.png.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 17 warnings, 219 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 2.0 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gnuastro-debuginfo-0.23-2.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmptzq3e9jd')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 44 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 3 gnuastro.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgnuastro.so.21.0.0 /lib64/libz.so.1 gnuastro.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgnuastro.so.21.0.0 /lib64/libgslcblas.so.0 gnuastro.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgnuastro_make.so.21.0.0 /lib64/libgit2.so.1.9 gnuastro.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgnuastro_make.so.21.0.0 /lib64/libtiff.so.6 gnuastro.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgnuastro_make.so.21.0.0 /lib64/libjpeg.so.62 gnuastro.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgnuastro_make.so.21.0.0 /lib64/libwcs.so.8 gnuastro.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgnuastro_make.so.21.0.0 /lib64/libcfitsio.so.10 gnuastro.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgnuastro_make.so.21.0.0 /lib64/libz.so.1 gnuastro.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgnuastro_make.so.21.0.0 /lib64/libgsl.so.28 gnuastro.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgnuastro_make.so.21.0.0 /lib64/libgslcblas.so.0 gnuastro.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libgnuastro_make.so.21.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 gnuastro.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libgnuastro_make.so.21.0.0 gmk_add_function (/usr/lib64/libgnuastro_make.so.21.0.0) gnuastro.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary astscript-color-faint-gray gnuastro-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation gnuastro.x86_64: E: info-dir-file /usr/share/info/dir gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/color-names.pdf.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/color-names.png.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/epicycles.png.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/flatplane.pdf.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/flatplane.png.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/gnuastro.pdf.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/iandtime.pdf.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/iandtime.png.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/samplingfreq.pdf.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/samplingfreq.png.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/sphereandplane.pdf.gz gnuastro.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/sphereandplane.png.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 14 warnings, 276 filtered, 13 badness; has taken 5.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnuastro/gnuastro-0.23.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f97e775ffb5981c63f8adfbe958fcebf9147c13f0e7e96407dddfdf33b3f7702 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f97e775ffb5981c63f8adfbe958fcebf9147c13f0e7e96407dddfdf33b3f7702 Requires -------- gnuastro (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh config(gnuastro) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcfitsio.so.10()(64bit) libgit2.so.1.9()(64bit) libgnuastro.so.21()(64bit) libgsl.so.28()(64bit) libgslcblas.so.0()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libtiff.so.6()(64bit) libtiff.so.6(LIBTIFF_4.0)(64bit) libwcs.so.8()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) gnuastro-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config gnuastro(x86-64) libgnuastro.so.21()(64bit) libgnuastro_make.so.21()(64bit) pkgconfig(cfitsio) pkgconfig(gsl) pkgconfig(libgit2) pkgconfig(libjpeg) pkgconfig(libtiff-4) pkgconfig(wcslib) Provides -------- gnuastro: config(gnuastro) gnuastro gnuastro(x86-64) libgnuastro.so.21()(64bit) libgnuastro_make.so.21()(64bit) gnuastro-devel: gnuastro-devel gnuastro-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(gnuastro) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2348783 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, Python, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Sorry for the delay, forgot to check this had been updated. b) Koji build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134308233 c) Please check https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40fedora-review/fedora-review-2348783-gnuastro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08804654-gnuastro/fedora-review/licensecheck.txt and update license listing appropriately d) Please add a check section: %check export CPATH="/usr/include/cfitsio" make check This seems to run for me, though simpleio test fails on x86_64, aarch64 and s390x on koji but passes locally, and i686 does not fully build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134313948 Reported bug https://savannah.gnu.org/support/index.php?111264 e) Documentation indicates there are Python bindings, but they do not seem to be built even with --enable-python f) Consider adding make-devel as a build dependency: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuastro/manual/html_node/Optional-dependencies.html g) Please verify the signature h) You may consider separating documentation into a subpackage as done in OpenSuse https://build.opensuse.org/projects/openSUSE:Factory/packages/gnuastro/files/gnuastro.spec i) Please do not glob the first part of the soname in the files listing, should have: %{_libdir}/libgnuastro.so.21* %{_libdir}/libgnuastro_make.so.21* perhaps check with upstream if it should be 23 or 21 j) Is there interest in adding: https://sites.google.com/cfa.harvard.edu/saoimageds9 http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/topcat to Fedora? -- 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=2348783 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202348783%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
