https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2425235
Benson Muite <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] CC| |[email protected] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Benson Muite <[email protected]> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [!]: 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 General Public License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License". 135 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/feathernotes/2425235- feathernotes/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/mime/packages, /usr/share/mime [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [ ]: Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: Couldn't connect to Pagure, check manually [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 24389 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]: 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]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: 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. [-]: %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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1280000 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: feathernotes-1.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm feathernotes-1.3.2-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpdwefe8wp')] checks: 32, packages: 2 feathernotes.src: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS') feathernotes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS') feathernotes.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feathernotes feathernotes.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/feathernotes/INSTALL feathernotes.src: W: inconsistent-file-extension FeatherNotes-1.3.2.tar.xz feathernotes.src: E: description-line-too-long * Support for rich text formatting, image embedding and inserting editable tables; feathernotes.src: E: description-line-too-long * Other features that can be found in its settings, on its menus or when it is actually used. feathernotes.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long * Support for rich text formatting, image embedding and inserting editable tables; feathernotes.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long * Other features that can be found in its settings, on its menus or when it is actually used. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: feathernotes-debuginfo-1.3.2-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxs11dfm8')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 feathernotes.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS') feathernotes.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feathernotes feathernotes.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/feathernotes/INSTALL feathernotes.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long * Support for rich text formatting, image embedding and inserting editable tables; feathernotes.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long * Other features that can be found in its settings, on its menus or when it is actually used. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tsujan/FeatherNotes/archive/V1.3.2.tar.gz#/FeatherNotes-1.3.2.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c6cbbbd8003cbc3a1e0c3728094d68f0d50d930b3401d1c1ce39a3d9d1be53f8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c6cbbbd8003cbc3a1e0c3728094d68f0d50d930b3401d1c1ce39a3d9d1be53f8 Requires -------- feathernotes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.10)(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6()(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Gui.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6PrintSupport.so.6()(64bit) libQt6PrintSupport.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Svg.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Svg.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Widgets.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Xml.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Xml.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libX11.so.6()(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) libhunspell-1.7.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- feathernotes: application() application(feathernotes.desktop) feathernotes feathernotes(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(feathernotes.metainfo.xml) mimehandler(text/feathernotes-fnx) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2425235 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, Java, PHP, fonts, Python, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Consider changing Source0: %{url}/archive/V%{version}.tar.gz#/%{github_name}-%{version}.tar.xz to Source0: %{url}/archive/V%{version}/%{github_name}-%{version}.tar.gz or use the %forgesource macros https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_using_forges_hosted_revision_control b) Simplecrypt is under BSD-3-Clause https://github.com/tsujan/FeatherNotes/blob/master/feathernotes/simplecrypt.cpp https://github.com/tsujan/FeatherNotes/blob/master/feathernotes/simplecrypt.h Please update license information accordingly Upstream source is: https://wiki.qt.io/Simple_encryption_with_SimpleCrypt The name seems to be used elsewhere: https://github.com/alessgorgo/SimpleCrypt https://github.com/Nova-Squad/SimpleCrypt https://github.com/andrewcooke/simple-crypt Maybe it is possible to use an existing packaged encryption library instead? Raised an issue upstream: https://github.com/tsujan/FeatherNotes/issues/412 c) Please shorten lines in the description d) Builds on all architectures: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=140407919 e) To ensure ownership of all directories, you may need to require shared-mime-info https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/shared-mime-info/shared-mime-info/ -- 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=2425235 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202425235%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
