https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2423781
Gerald Cox <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Gerald Cox <[email protected]> --- Approved. Package Review Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: rpmlint reports a zero-length interface file: /usr/lib64/ocaml/ppx_bench/ppx_bench.mli in the -devel subpackage. This file is intentionally empty upstream for this PPX package and does not indicate a packaging error. rpmlint reports “no-documentation” for ocaml-ppx-bench-devel. This is expected for an OCaml PPX/compiler extension package. The main package installs README.md and CHANGES.md as documentation. licensecheck reports some files as “Unknown or generated”. These correspond to generated build artifacts. The upstream project is licensed under MIT, which is correctly declared in the spec and installed via %license. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "MIT License", "No copyright MIT License". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/ocaml-ppx- bench/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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. [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 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 979 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). Note: Requires/Provides are included below; no manual sanity review performed beyond ensuring they were generated and present. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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: Upstream does not publish signatures. [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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. Rpmlint Checking: ocaml-ppx-bench-0.17.1-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ocaml-ppx-bench-devel-0.17.1-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ocaml-ppx-bench-0.17.1-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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/tmpp5osel2m')] checks: 32, packages: 3 ocaml-ppx-bench-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/ocaml/ppx_bench/ppx_bench.mli ocaml-ppx-bench-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 11 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 1.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) Checking: ocaml-ppx-bench-debuginfo-0.17.1-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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/tmpez2d00xx')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (installed packages) (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ocaml-ppx-bench-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ocaml-ppx-bench-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ocaml-ppx-bench". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums https://github.com/janestreet/ppx_bench/archive/v0.17.1/ppx_bench-0.17.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e5c120bf63446bff8bc87e9613160e53d54d4fd3c2e27ad5551812bc62e99b8d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e5c120bf63446bff8bc87e9613160e53d54d4fd3c2e27ad5551812bc62e99b8d Requires ocaml-ppx-bench (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libzstd.so.1()(64bit) ocaml(Astlib) ocaml(Astlib__) ocaml(Astlib__Ast_408) ocaml(Astlib__Ast_409) ocaml(Astlib__Ast_410) ocaml(Astlib__Ast_411) ocaml(Astlib__Ast_412) ocaml(Astlib__Ast_413) ocaml(Astlib__Ast_414) ocaml(Astlib__Ast_500) ocaml(Astlib__Ast_501) ocaml(Astlib__Ast_502) ocaml(Astlib__Ast_503) ocaml(Astlib__Ast_504) ocaml(Astlib__Location) ocaml(Astlib__Longident) ocaml(Astlib__Longident_504) ocaml(Astlib__Parse) ocaml(Astlib__Pprintast) ocaml(Asttypes) ocaml(Build_path_prefix_map) ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(CamlinternalLazy) ocaml(Clflags) ocaml(Cmi_format) ocaml(Compmisc) ocaml(Data_types) ocaml(Env) ocaml(Format_doc) ocaml(Ident) ocaml(Identifiable) ocaml(Load_path) ocaml(Location) ocaml(Longident) ocaml(Misc) ocaml(Ocaml_common) ocaml(Ocaml_shadow) ocaml(Outcometree) ocaml(Parsetree) ocaml(Path) ocaml(Pprintast) ocaml(Ppx_bench_lib) ocaml(Ppx_inline_test_libname) ocaml(Ppxlib) ocaml(Ppxlib__) ocaml(Ppxlib__Ast_builder) ocaml(Ppxlib__Ast_builder_generated) ocaml(Ppxlib__Ast_builder_intf) ocaml(Ppxlib__Ast_pattern) ocaml(Ppxlib__Ast_pattern0) ocaml(Ppxlib__Ast_pattern_generated) ocaml(Ppxlib__Ast_traverse) ocaml(Ppxlib__Ast_traverse0) ocaml(Ppxlib__Attribute) ocaml(Ppxlib__Code_path) ocaml(Ppxlib__Common) ocaml(Ppxlib__Context_free) ocaml(Ppxlib__Driver) ocaml(Ppxlib__Expansion_context) ocaml(Ppxlib__Extension) ocaml(Ppxlib__Import) ocaml(Ppxlib__Loc) ocaml(Ppxlib__Location) ocaml(Ppxlib__Longident) ocaml(Ppxlib__Name) ocaml(Ppxlib__Utils) ocaml(Ppxlib_ast) ocaml(Ppxlib_ast__) ocaml(Ppxlib_ast__Ast) ocaml(Ppxlib_ast__Import) ocaml(Ppxlib_ast__Versions) ocaml(Ppxlib_traverse_builtins) ocaml(Primitive) ocaml(Profile) ocaml(Sexplib0) ocaml(Sexplib0__) ocaml(Sexplib0__Sexp) ocaml(Sexplib0__Sexp_conv) ocaml(Sexplib0__Sexp_conv_grammar) ocaml(Sexplib0__Sexp_grammar) ocaml(Sexplib0__Sexpable) ocaml(Shape) ocaml(Stdlib) ocaml(Stdlib__Arg) ocaml(Stdlib__Array) ocaml(Stdlib__Buffer) ocaml(Stdlib__Bytes) ocaml(Stdlib__BytesLabels) ocaml(Stdlib__Char) ocaml(Stdlib__Digest) ocaml(Stdlib__Domain) ocaml(Stdlib__Either) ocaml(Stdlib__Format) ocaml(Stdlib__Hashtbl) ocaml(Stdlib__Lazy) ocaml(Stdlib__Lexing) ocaml(Stdlib__List) ocaml(Stdlib__ListLabels) ocaml(Stdlib__Map) ocaml(Stdlib__Result) ocaml(Stdlib__Seq) ocaml(Stdlib__Set) ocaml(Stdlib__StdLabels) ocaml(Stdlib__String) ocaml(Stdlib__StringLabels) ocaml(Stdlib__Sys) ocaml(Stdlib__Uchar) ocaml(Stdppx) ocaml(Subst) ocaml(Type_immediacy) ocaml(Types) ocaml(Unit_info) ocaml(Warnings) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides ocaml-ppx-bench: ocaml(Ppx_bench) ocaml(Ppx_bench_lib) ocaml(Ppx_bench_lib__Benchmark_accumulator) ocaml(Ppx_bench_lib__Export) ocaml-ppx-bench ocaml-ppx-bench(x86-64) ocaml-ppx-bench-devel: ocaml(Ppx_bench) ocaml(Ppx_bench_lib) ocaml(Ppx_bench_lib__Benchmark_accumulator) ocaml(Ppx_bench_lib__Export) ocaml-ppx-bench-devel ocaml-ppx-bench-devel(x86-64) ocamlx(Ppx_bench) ocamlx(Ppx_bench_lib) ocamlx(Ppx_bench_lib__Benchmark_accumulator) ocamlx(Ppx_bench_lib__Export) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name ocaml-ppx-bench --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++, Ocaml Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, Perl, PHP, R, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity 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=2423781 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202423781%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ 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
