https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2348783 --- Comment #12 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [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: [ ]: 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. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 280142 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 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]: %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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: 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]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnuastro-0.23-3.fc43.x86_64.rpm gnuastro-devel-0.23-3.fc43.x86_64.rpm gnuastro-doc-0.23-3.fc43.noarch.rpm gnuastro-0.23-3.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/tmpcqdtl5vu')] checks: 32, packages: 4 gnuastro.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary astscript-color-faint-gray gnuastro-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: infopage-not-compressed gz /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures gnuastro-doc.noarch: E: info-dir-file /usr/share/info/dir gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/color-names.pdf.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/color-names.png.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/epicycles.png.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/flatplane.pdf.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/flatplane.png.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/gnuastro.pdf.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/iandtime.pdf.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/iandtime.png.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/samplingfreq.pdf.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/samplingfreq.png.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/sphereandplane.pdf.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/sphereandplane.png.gz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 15 warnings, 194 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.9 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: gnuastro-debuginfo-0.23-3.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/tmpl1znojno')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 44 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.4 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 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-doc.noarch: W: infopage-not-compressed gz /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures gnuastro-doc.noarch: E: info-dir-file /usr/share/info/dir gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/color-names.pdf.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/color-names.png.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/epicycles.png.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/flatplane.pdf.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/flatplane.png.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/gnuastro.pdf.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/iandtime.pdf.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/iandtime.png.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/samplingfreq.pdf.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/samplingfreq.png.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/sphereandplane.pdf.gz gnuastro-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/gnuastro-figures/sphereandplane.png.gz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 15 warnings, 251 filtered, 13 badness; has taken 5.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://akhlaghi.org/public-pgp-key.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 81ff537e2dcfcffcb436bfbdffad22ac7d0d15e8c43a3e356ad1eeac0323415a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 81ff537e2dcfcffcb436bfbdffad22ac7d0d15e8c43a3e356ad1eeac0323415a https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnuastro/gnuastro-0.23.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 60bf961b2bc06f946550166fe35f4fade3cb10dff9049d21a87663b2212a7d2d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 60bf961b2bc06f946550166fe35f4fade3cb10dff9049d21a87663b2212a7d2d 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) gnuastro-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- gnuastro: bundled(gnulib) 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) gnuastro-doc: gnuastro-doc 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: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, R, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH The file usr/share/gnuastro/astscript-fits-view.desktop should be installed using desktop-file-install or use desktop-file-validate See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_files Desktop files go into %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/ Is an appdata file also needed? See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ Please add test -f %{buildroot}/%{_infodir}/dir && rm %{buildroot}/%{_infodir}/dir see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial_2_GNU_Hello/#_texinfo_pages -- 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=2348783 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202348783%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
