https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2228190 --- Comment #12 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - 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/sugar-paint See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: 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]: 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 223 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/sugar- paint/2228190-sugar-paint/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/gug, /usr/share/locale/gom@latin, /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK, /usr/share/locale/be_Latn, /usr/share/locale/gug/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/be_Latn/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/gom@latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/gom@latin, /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN, /usr/share/locale/gug/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/gom@latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK, /usr/lib64/python3.14, /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/gug, /usr/share/locale/be_Latn/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/be_Latn, /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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. [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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 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 6461 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]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [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: [-]: 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. [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. [ ]: 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]: 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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2181120 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: sugar-paint-72-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm sugar-paint-72-1.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/tmp7uche81h')] checks: 32, packages: 2 sugar-paint.spec: W: no-%check-section sugar-paint.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2 sugar-paint.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/aym/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/ibo/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/be_Latn/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sugar-paint/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/Area.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/Desenho.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/OficinaActivity.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/dialogs.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/fontcombobox.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/setup.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/toolbox.py sugar-paint.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/.flake8 sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/NEWS /usr/share/doc/sugar-paint/NEWS sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/COPYING /usr/share/licenses/sugar-paint/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/zu/activity.linfo /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/ab/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/agr/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/ak/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/an/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/arn/activity.linfo:(and 57 more) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 16 errors, 7 warnings, 7 filtered, 16 badness; has taken 0.7 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: 1 sugar-paint.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so /lib64/libm.so.6 sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyModuleDef_Init (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so _Py_Dealloc (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PySequence_GetItem (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyTuple_New (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyTuple_SetItem (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyObject_Size (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyArg_ParseTuple (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyLong_AsUnsignedLong (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyLong_FromUnsignedLong (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/aym/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/ibo/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/be_Latn/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sugar-paint/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/Area.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/Desenho.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/OficinaActivity.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/dialogs.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/fontcombobox.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/setup.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/toolbox.py sugar-paint.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/.flake8 sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/NEWS /usr/share/doc/sugar-paint/NEWS sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/COPYING /usr/share/licenses/sugar-paint/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/zu/activity.linfo /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/ab/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/agr/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/ak/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/an/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/arn/activity.linfo:(and 57 more) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 16 errors, 15 warnings, 3 filtered, 16 badness; has taken 0.3 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- sugar-paint: /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so Source checksums ---------------- http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/honey/Paint/Paint-72.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2d9a2ed638dd8f7db99de18bfec5eb05b5ef81580d9c0a3e289b0b6e01d8ff0f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2d9a2ed638dd8f7db99de18bfec5eb05b5ef81580d9c0a3e289b0b6e01d8ff0f Requires -------- sugar-paint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) sugar Provides -------- sugar-paint: sugar-paint sugar-paint(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2228190 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, Java, Perl, R, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please update FSF addresses b) The license in the spec file should likely be GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-3.0-or-later Please use SPDX expressions Some of the program files have no license information, others have GPL-2.0-only and others have GPL-2.0-or-later. Consider using REUSE linting to ensure all files have license specifiers. https://reuse.readthedocs.io/en/stable/man/reuse-lint.html c) A python library path is used %{python3_sitearch}/fill/ To prevent conflicts, please register the name fill on PyPI. Ideally, rather than using fill, consider using sugar-paint or another name related to the application. d) Please do not package /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/.flake8 it is not needed when running the application. e) Please package and validate the desktop file https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_files You will also need an appdata file https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ f) Is it possible to use the Python packaging macros? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ g) There are some issues with locale directories in Fedora. May need to get these updated. Please raise an issue. See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939724 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2251577 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2311691 -- 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=2228190 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202228190%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
