https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2386504 --- Comment #4 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - 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. Note: License file addonmanager_devmode_license_selector.cpython-314.opt-1.pyc is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2+'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/freecad See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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. [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: [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", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 3-Clause License and/or zlib License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Boost Software License and/or Freetype Project License and/or GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 and/or Mozilla Public License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Boost Software License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* zlib License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later and/or zlib License [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 3.0", "Apache License 2.0", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0 and/or MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "Boost Software License", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later [generated file, obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike", "GNU General Public License, Version 3 and/or GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Boost Software License 1.0 and/or GNU Library General Public License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "Khronos License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later and/or MIT License [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 6649 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/freecad/2386504-freecad/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/mime, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/mime/packages, /usr/share/thumbnailers, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/mimetypes, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor [ ]: %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. [ ]: 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 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 5812 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [ ]: 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in freecad- data [ ]: 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. [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: %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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== 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: freecad-1.0.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm freecad-data-1.0.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm freecad-1.0.1-1.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/tmpqgwer7d3')] checks: 32, packages: 3 Initial comments: a) Please require hicolor-icon-theme b) Main license should use SPDX identifier LGPL-2.0-or-later c) Can licenses for other files also be listed? d) The latest release is 1.0.2 e) Raised issue to register name on PyPI https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/issues/22965 f) Guidelines Support Library (GSL) is packaged: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/guidelines-support-library can it be used? g) Smesh is a modified version for FreeCAD, so it is unlikely another version could be used. h) Can some of the tests be run? See for example: https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/blob/main/.github/workflows/sub_buildUbuntu.yml -- 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=2386504 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202386504%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ 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
