https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2394931 Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx CC| |benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: 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", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License [generated file]", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License". 2006 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/botan3/2394931- botan3/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.14 [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 52469 bytes in 4 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 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 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-botan3 [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: botan3-3.9.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm botan3-devel-3.9.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm python3-botan3-3.9.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm botan3-doc-3.9.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm botan3-3.9.0-1.fc44.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/tmpk9j3pzjf')] checks: 32, packages: 5 botan3.src: W: strange-permission botan3.spec 666 botan3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-botan3.noarch: W: no-documentation botan3.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/botan3/license.txt /usr/share/doc/botan3/license.txt 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 31 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: botan3-debuginfo-3.9.0-1.fc44.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/tmpge07xsfk')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 4.4 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: 5 python3-botan3.noarch: W: no-documentation botan3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation botan3.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/botan3/license.txt /usr/share/doc/botan3/license.txt 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 38 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://botan.randombit.net/pgpkey.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 07862f27687739a7ac201759779d361fa6282f0d6f1cb7973c68ebe1f36f54af CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 07862f27687739a7ac201759779d361fa6282f0d6f1cb7973c68ebe1f36f54af https://botan.randombit.net/releases/Botan-3.9.0.tar.xz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d3bed356b65ae4ddab168c80989e16392cdfe405b894cb5b6dbf8fd6beb310f0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d3bed356b65ae4ddab168c80989e16392cdfe405b894cb5b6dbf8fd6beb310f0 https://botan.randombit.net/releases/Botan-3.9.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8c3f284b58ddd42e8e43e9fa86a7129d87ea7c3f776a80d3da63ec20722b0883 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8c3f284b58ddd42e8e43e9fa86a7129d87ea7c3f776a80d3da63ec20722b0883 Requires -------- botan3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libbotan-3.so.9()(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.2)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) botan3-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config botan3(x86-64) libbotan-3.so.9()(64bit) python3-botan3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): botan3 python(abi) botan3-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- botan3: botan3 botan3(x86-64) libbotan-3.so.9()(64bit) botan3-devel: botan3-devel botan3-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(botan-3) python3-botan3: python-botan3 python3-botan3 python3.14-botan3 botan3-doc: botan3-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2394931 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=137067722 b) soname should not be globbed: c) license.txt file is duplicated /usr/share/doc/botan3/license.txt /usr/share/licenses/botan3/license.txt d) devel package does not need a license as it requires main package e) Man page has incorrect filename botan3.1*.gz f) Do not glob includedir %{_includedir}/* Can have conflicts %{_includedir}/botan-3/ would be ok g) The name does not appear to be blocked on PyPI. Perhaps check if upstream would be willing to put the python packages on PyPI -- 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=2394931 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202394931%23c5 -- _______________________________________________ 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
