https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2363587 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I’m sorry to say that I lost track of this review for a while! It looks like you fixed everything that needed attention, and the update to 0.6.0 didn’t introduce any new packaging issues due to upstream changes. Thanks! The package is APPROVED, with the understanding that you must correct the typo in the license macro definition on import (see Issues, below). Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - Please correct %define simplifed_license %{shrink: to %define simplified_license %{shrink: on import. Currently, the actual License expression is an unexpanded macro due to this typo. ===== Notes (no change required) ===== - The “overlinking” is still present; as noted before, this is a defect, but a relatively inconsequential one, and one that it doesn’t seem straightforward or worthwhile to “fix.” - The spec file now has a TODO to consider upstream or downstream man pages. ===== MUST items ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2". 62 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2363587-tbtools/licensecheck.txt It appears that the License field would be correct, except for a typo in the name of the license expression macro. See Issues, above. The optional SourceLicense field is correct. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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. I specifically checked for file conflicts on /usr/bin/*. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 152689 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: 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]: 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]: 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]: Package functions as described. (Tests pass. I did not attempt to test this interactively.) [x]: 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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=135640250 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define cargo_install_lib 0, %define simplifed_license %{shrink: Indeed, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_global_preferred_over_define advises using %global, but the situation is more complicated (see https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1449) and the currently-documented advice is oversimplified and arguably wrong. While we wait on a new consensus, it suffices to say that since the value of the macro is a constant and does not contain other macros, it doesn’t matter whether you use %global or %define here, and there’s no need to justify it either way, despite what fedora-review says. [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: tbtools-0.6.0-1.fc43.aarch64.rpm tbtools-0.6.0-1.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/tmpfxex4ee8')] checks: 32, packages: 2 tbtools.aarch64: W: unexpanded-macro License %{simplified_license} tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lstb tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbadapters tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbauth tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbdump tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbget tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tblist tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbman tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbmargin tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbpd tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbset tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbtrace tbtools.aarch64: W: invalid-license %{simplified_license} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tbtools-debuginfo-0.6.0-1.fc43.aarch64.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/tmph1jux9a2')] checks: 32, packages: 1 tbtools-debuginfo.aarch64: W: unexpanded-macro License %{simplified_license} tbtools-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license %{simplified_license} 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 27 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 4.7 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 tbtools.aarch64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/tbman /lib64/libm.so.6 tbtools.aarch64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/bin/tbpd /lib64/libudev.so.1 tbtools-debuginfo.aarch64: W: unexpanded-macro License %{simplified_license} tbtools.aarch64: W: unexpanded-macro License %{simplified_license} tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lstb tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbadapters tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbauth tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbdump tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbget tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tblist tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbman tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbmargin tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbpd tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbset tbtools.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tbtrace tbtools-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license %{simplified_license} tbtools.aarch64: W: invalid-license %{simplified_license} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings, 40 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/intel/tbtools/archive/v0.6.0/tbtools-0.6.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 13ba72ef8c47d04d1e16a3f7db154a92b50a8ea34b1ea6bd41e69838139c6c3c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 13ba72ef8c47d04d1e16a3f7db154a92b50a8ea34b1ea6bd41e69838139c6c3c Requires -------- tbtools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_199)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- tbtools: tbtools tbtools(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2363587 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, Java, Ocaml, fonts, R, C/C++, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2363587 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202363587%23c8 -- _______________________________________________ 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
