https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369164
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James <[email protected]> --- Catch you on vacation, did I? Well then, I won't expect a reply to this review for a couple of weeks either. Enjoy your vacation! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - There is a misspelled word on the 2nd line of %description: LabelWrtier - Is "Requires: cups" really needed? A dependency on cups-libs is automatically generated, and cups-libs Requires cups-filesystem, which owns all of the directories where files are installed. What is in the cups package, but not in cups-libs or cups-filesystem, that this package needs? - Is "BuildRequires: python3-cups" needed? It doesn't seem to be used in the build. - Since the 2.0.0.0 version number was added 2 years ago and there have been commits since, I would classify this as a postrelease version. In that case, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots applies. Please modify the Version field to contain snapshot information after a ^ as described. ### Everything below here is a suggestion. Ignore anything you don't like. ### - Remove the line in the spec file that reads: # Automatically converted from old format: GPLv2+ - review is highly recommended. I examined the tarball and agree that GPL-2.0-or-later is correct. - LICENSE and COPYING are the same file, modulo some spacing changes. We don't need both of them installed. They also contain obsolete FSF addresses. Please ask upstream to refresh the license text from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html. Ah, wait, I see that you have a patch to update FSF addresses. The FSF itself now prefers the use of web addresses instead of street addresses, precisely because they keep moving. See the license link just above. - Consider using %autorelease and %autochangelog. - Source and Patch numbers are no longer needed if they aren't referenced by number later in the spec; i.e., you can write "Source:" instead of "Source0:", and "Patch:" for every patch. This helps with adding and removing patches from a series; you don't have to renumber the other patches. - "BuildRequires: sed" is not necessary, since sed is in the @buildsys-build group; i.e., it is installed for every build. - Likewise, "BuildRequires: glibc-headers" is not necessary, since gcc depends on it. - Consider adding "VCS: git:%{url}.git" below the URL field. The VCS field tells users how to check out the source code. See "Informative package tags" at https://rpm.org/docs/6.0.x/manual/tags.html. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: 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]: 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. [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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant [generated file]". 59 files have unknown license. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/cups, /usr/lib/cups/filter, /usr/share/cups/model, /usr/share/cups This is okay, because the package Requires: cups, which Requires: cups-filesystem, which owns these directories. [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. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 831 bytes in 3 files. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. There is one more commit beyond the packaged one, but I think it doesn't matter for the target driver. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-2.0.0.0-1.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/tmp3079y8ba')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx-debuginfo-2.0.0.0-1.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/tmpp11zwqdz')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 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 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 17 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dymosoftware/Drivers/archive/795a815363a4401a30a1c0ef94f3381186172843.tar.gz#/Drivers-795a815363a4401a30a1c0ef94f3381186172843.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a0c19ff7b763bb23c992bc76897d0053f26b42dfd953d33aedd6f59fd8e9591b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a0c19ff7b763bb23c992bc76897d0053f26b42dfd953d33aedd6f59fd8e9591b Requires -------- dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cups libc.so.6()(64bit) libcups.so.2()(64bit) libcupsimage.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx: dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx dymo-cups-drivers-lw5xx(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2369164 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, Python, PHP, fonts, Ruby, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2369164 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202369164%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
