https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258041 --- Comment #6 from andreyesquivel.dev@xxxxxxxxx --- Hello team, As part of my Fedora sponsorship process, I have performed a thorough review using the original files provided in this Bugzilla ticket. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: 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. This is a PAM module installed to /usr/lib64/security/, not intended for development or linking. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. licensecheck shows 7 files with unknown license. [!]: 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". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/andreyesquivel/thirdmock/review- pam_xdg_runtime_dir/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/security [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Cannot confirm permissibility. [-]: 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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Some hardcoded paths (/usr/lib64/security) are present. [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: pam-unauthorized-module pam_xdg_runtime_dir.so (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/) [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 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 662 bytes in 1 files. [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. The LICENSE file is present, but several source files have unclear or missing license headers. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. The LICENSE file is included by upstream in the tarball, not added separately in the spec. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. gpgverify is not used. The upstream does not publish signatures. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Currently only tested on x86_64. PAM modules may behave differently on other architectures due to libpam layout. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. A %check section is missing. Including even minimal validation (e.g., successful loading of the module) is recommended. [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]: 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: [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]: 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: pam_xdg_runtime_dir-1.0.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm pam_xdg_runtime_dir-1.0.0-1.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/tmpyhy19oyl')] checks: 32, packages: 2 pam_xdg_runtime_dir.src: E: spelling-error ('uid', 'Summary(en_US) uid -> yid, id, aid') pam_xdg_runtime_dir.src: E: spelling-error ('systemd', '%description -l en_US systemd -> systems, system, system d') pam_xdg_runtime_dir.src: E: spelling-error ('logind', '%description -l en_US logind -> logins, login, log ind') pam_xdg_runtime_dir.src: E: spelling-error ('uid', '%description -l en_US uid -> yid, id, aid') pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('uid', 'Summary(en_US) uid -> yid, id, aid') pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('systemd', '%description -l en_US systemd -> systems, system, system d') pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('logind', '%description -l en_US logind -> logins, login, log ind') pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('uid', '%description -l en_US uid -> yid, id, aid') pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: pam-unauthorized-module pam_xdg_runtime_dir.so pam_xdg_runtime_dir.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 9 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pam_xdg_runtime_dir-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.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/tmpv5yxpbkk')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 2 pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('uid', 'Summary(en_US) uid -> yid, id, aid') pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('systemd', '%description -l en_US systemd -> systems, system, system d') pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('logind', '%description -l en_US logind -> logins, login, log ind') pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('uid', '%description -l en_US uid -> yid, id, aid') pam_xdg_runtime_dir.x86_64: E: pam-unauthorized-module pam_xdg_runtime_dir.so 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.5 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- pam_xdg_runtime_dir: /usr/lib64/security/pam_xdg_runtime_dir.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cernops/pam_xdg_runtime_dir/archive/1.0.0/pam_xdg_runtime_dir-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9216bf1a79806c50880ebd21cc04788683b328443150211606d24c2475ef6266 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9216bf1a79806c50880ebd21cc04788683b328443150211606d24c2475ef6266 Requires -------- pam_xdg_runtime_dir (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_EXTENSION_1.0)(64bit) libselinux.so.1()(64bit) libselinux.so.1(LIBSELINUX_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- pam_xdg_runtime_dir: pam_xdg_runtime_dir pam_xdg_runtime_dir(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n pam_xdg_runtime_dir Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, Perl, Python, PHP, Haskell, R, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Please let me know if any further clarification is needed. -- 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=2258041 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202258041%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ 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
