https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317888 Andreas Schneider <asn@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #34 from Andreas Schneider <asn@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/asn/workspace/pkg/fedora/REVIEW/review-ngtcp2/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "FSF All Permissive License", "MIT License [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "ISC License and/or MIT License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asn/workspace/pkg/fedora/REVIEW/review- ngtcp2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 32419 bytes in 3 files. [x]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ngtcp2-devel [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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not the first command in %prep. Sources 3, 4 and 5 are not passed to gpgverify. [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]: 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]: 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: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: ngtcp2-1.13.0-5.fc43.x86_64.rpm ngtcp2-devel-1.13.0-5.fc43.x86_64.rpm ngtcp2-doc-1.13.0-5.fc43.noarch.rpm ngtcp2-1.13.0-5.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/tmpjjne14g8')] checks: 32, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 24 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ngtcp2-debuginfo-1.13.0-5.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/tmp34smx80u')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 34 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ngtcp2/ngtcp2/raw/refs/tags/v1.13.0/doc/source/programmers-guide.rst : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a3c1b30c5017a22e0f112ab8ab9082efd2100d475dd8514896cf077299e573fb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bbdcaa6c096971bec16b2324c54501eefc013ae2c767471af1a7505accaf3884 https://github.com/ngtcp2/ngtcp2/raw/refs/tags/v1.13.0/doc/source/index.rst : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7b399eee49aea00d96c0dda004de62eb2b5e9058097da08474f66c3efae951cb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7b399eee49aea00d96c0dda004de62eb2b5e9058097da08474f66c3efae951cb https://github.com/ngtcp2/ngtcp2/raw/refs/tags/v1.13.0/doc/mkapiref.py : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : daa20426ead1f0061c74a967ac566787c723411a7d726f5dec75faa2e2ee926e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : daa20426ead1f0061c74a967ac566787c723411a7d726f5dec75faa2e2ee926e https://keyserver.ubuntu.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xf4f3b91474d1eb29889bd0ef7e8403d5d673c366#/tatsuhiro-t.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c66a1c01ee71273b4714ea6e2bfa0a68d84d427d56daf31cf5789198fe5b1b9e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c66a1c01ee71273b4714ea6e2bfa0a68d84d427d56daf31cf5789198fe5b1b9e https://github.com/ngtcp2/ngtcp2/releases/download/v1.13.0/ngtcp2-1.13.0.tar.xz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cadf3146e3058ce5465dda43e5e3a3bc88cd1fb09c4376fb18d46e523cfdb70b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cadf3146e3058ce5465dda43e5e3a3bc88cd1fb09c4376fb18d46e523cfdb70b https://github.com/ngtcp2/ngtcp2/releases/download/v1.13.0/ngtcp2-1.13.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cc98cdd7d0ce0050b5589c99f89ac72fb34aee6ff88bb3351f239407a65699fe CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cc98cdd7d0ce0050b5589c99f89ac72fb34aee6ff88bb3351f239407a65699fe diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- ngtcp2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4)(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_6_13)(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_7_0)(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_7_2)(64bit) libngtcp2.so.16()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ngtcp2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libngtcp2.so.16()(64bit) libngtcp2_crypto_gnutls.so.8()(64bit) ngtcp2(x86-64) ngtcp2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ngtcp2 Provides -------- ngtcp2: libngtcp2.so.16()(64bit) libngtcp2_crypto_gnutls.so.8()(64bit) ngtcp2 ngtcp2(x86-64) ngtcp2-devel: ngtcp2-devel ngtcp2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libngtcp2) pkgconfig(libngtcp2_crypto_gnutls) ngtcp2-doc: ngtcp2-doc -- 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=2317888 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202317888%23c34 -- _______________________________________________ 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
