[Bug 2353163] New: Review Request: schemesh - Fusion between a Unix shell and a Lisp REPL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
Bug ID: 2353163 Summary: Review Request: schemesh - Fusion between a Unix shell and a Lisp REPL Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: hegjon@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/schemesh.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/schemesh-0.8.1-1.fc41.src.rpm
Description: Schemesh is an interactive shell scriptable in Lisp.
It is primarily intended as a user-friendly Unix login shell, replacing bash, zsh, pdksh etc.
Fedora Account System Username: jonny
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130436753
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8788303 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- 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. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Updated to version 0.8.2.
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/schemesh.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/schemesh-0.8.2-1.fc41.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2083482 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2083482&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8788303 to 8862706
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8862706 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- 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. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org ---
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - 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
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: 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]: 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Apache License 2.0". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/schmesh/2353163-schemesh/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/schemesh [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/schemesh [ ]: %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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 19469 bytes in 1 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]: 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
===== 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. [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. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: schemesh-0.8.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm schemesh-0.8.2-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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/tmpxfil_cau')] checks: 32, packages: 2
schemesh.src: E: spelling-error ('scriptable', '%description -l en_US scriptable -> scrip table, scrip-table, script able') schemesh.src: E: spelling-error ('zsh', '%description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash') schemesh.src: E: spelling-error ('pdksh', '%description -l en_US pdksh -> pinkish') schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('scriptable', '%description -l en_US scriptable -> scrip table, scrip-table, script able') schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('zsh', '%description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash') schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('pdksh', '%description -l en_US pdksh -> pinkish') schemesh.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary countdown schemesh.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary schemesh schemesh.spec: W: no-%check-section schemesh.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2+ schemesh.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2+ schemesh.src: E: description-line-too-long It is primarily intended as a user-friendly Unix login shell, replacing bash, zsh, pdksh etc. schemesh.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long It is primarily intended as a user-friendly Unix login shell, replacing bash, zsh, pdksh etc. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 5 warnings, 7 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: schemesh-debuginfo-0.8.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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/tmppdla1_99')] checks: 32, packages: 1
schemesh-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2+ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 2
schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('scriptable', '%description -l en_US scriptable -> scrip table, scrip-table, script able') schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('zsh', '%description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash') schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('pdksh', '%description -l en_US pdksh -> pinkish') schemesh.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary countdown schemesh.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary schemesh schemesh-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2+ schemesh.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2+ schemesh.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/schemesh/COPYING schemesh.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long It is primarily intended as a user-friendly Unix login shell, replacing bash, zsh, pdksh etc. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 4 warnings, 17 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- schemesh: /usr/lib64/schemesh/libschemesh_0.8.2.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cosmos72/schemesh/archive/v0.8.2/schemesh-0.8.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 80d4a46046aa22e113ef6ca44af32fa1ee55c7cc0480cc41e47692acbdd45e0d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 80d4a46046aa22e113ef6ca44af32fa1ee55c7cc0480cc41e47692acbdd45e0d
Requires -------- schemesh (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) liblz4.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0.2)(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.2.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- schemesh: schemesh schemesh(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2353163 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, R, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
comments: a) Koji build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131139164 b) Can tests be run? c) Please use spdx license identifiers d) One file is under Apache-2.0
Apache License 2.0 ------------------ schemesh-0.8.2-build/schemesh-0.8.2/containers/hashtable-types.ss
Though unclear if this is compiled into the final binary/library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Github | |cosmos72/schemesh/issues/14
--- Comment #7 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Asked upstream for clarifications about license
https://github.com/cosmos72/schemesh/issues/14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
--- Comment #8 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com ---
Can tests be run?
Added: %check ./schemesh_test
Output: + ./schemesh_test compiling libschemesh.ss with output to libschemesh_temp.so all 558 tests passed
c) Please use spdx license identifiers
Changed from GPLv2+ to GPL-2.0+ AND Apache-2.0.
GPL-2.0+ is valid, but deprecated by SPDX https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0+.html
d) One file is under Apache-2.0
I assume this file is redistributed in the library in the RPM, adding it to license tag.
Same URLs:
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/schemesh.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/schemesh-0.8.2-1.fc41.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
--- Comment #9 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131153297
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2083548 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2083548&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8862706 to 8863885
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8863885 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0+ AND Apache-2.0'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
--- Comment #12 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0+ AND Apache-2.0'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
===== 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]: 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", "Apache License 2.0". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/schmesh/2353163- schemesh/licensecheck.txt [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 19469 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: schemesh-0.8.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm schemesh-0.8.2-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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/tmpco1tcf4_')] checks: 32, packages: 2
schemesh.src: E: spelling-error ('scriptable', '%description -l en_US scriptable -> scrip table, scrip-table, script able') schemesh.src: E: spelling-error ('zsh', '%description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash') schemesh.src: E: spelling-error ('pdksh', '%description -l en_US pdksh -> pinkish') schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('scriptable', '%description -l en_US scriptable -> scrip table, scrip-table, script able') schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('zsh', '%description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash') schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('pdksh', '%description -l en_US pdksh -> pinkish') schemesh.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary countdown schemesh.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary schemesh schemesh.src: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0+ schemesh.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0+ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 4 warnings, 7 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: schemesh-debuginfo-0.8.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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/tmpl07nu9_q')] checks: 32, packages: 1
schemesh-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0+ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 2
schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('scriptable', '%description -l en_US scriptable -> scrip table, scrip-table, script able') schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('zsh', '%description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash') schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('pdksh', '%description -l en_US pdksh -> pinkish') schemesh.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary countdown schemesh.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary schemesh schemesh-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0+ schemesh.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL-2.0+ schemesh.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/schemesh/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings, 17 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- schemesh: /usr/lib64/schemesh/libschemesh_0.8.2.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cosmos72/schemesh/archive/v0.8.2/schemesh-0.8.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 80d4a46046aa22e113ef6ca44af32fa1ee55c7cc0480cc41e47692acbdd45e0d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 80d4a46046aa22e113ef6ca44af32fa1ee55c7cc0480cc41e47692acbdd45e0d
Requires -------- schemesh (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) liblz4.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0.2)(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.2.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- schemesh: schemesh schemesh(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2353163 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Python, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Under SPDX should use GPL-2.0-or-later see https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-or-later.html b) The Apache-2.0 license file does seem to be included.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
--- Comment #13 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Updated to 0.8.3.
Upstream have removed containers/hashtable-types.ss with the Apache 2.0 license.
License have been changed to GPL-2.0-or-later.
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/schemesh.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/schemesh-0.8.3-1.fc41.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2083691 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2083691&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8863885 to 8866905
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8866905 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #16 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org ---
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]: 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]: 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". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/schmesh/2353163-schemesh/licensecheck.txt [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 obys 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 19516 bytes in 1 files. [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: 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]: 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. [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. [x]: %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: 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: schemesh-0.8.3-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm schemesh-0.8.3-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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/tmpcz1fi7zm')] checks: 32, packages: 2
schemesh.src: E: spelling-error ('scriptable', '%description -l en_US scriptable -> scrip table, scrip-table, script able') schemesh.src: E: spelling-error ('zsh', '%description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash') schemesh.src: E: spelling-error ('pdksh', '%description -l en_US pdksh -> pinkish') schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('scriptable', '%description -l en_US scriptable -> scrip table, scrip-table, script able') schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('zsh', '%description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash') schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('pdksh', '%description -l en_US pdksh -> pinkish') schemesh.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary countdown schemesh.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary schemesh 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: schemesh-debuginfo-0.8.3-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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/tmpbl0wvh8k')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 2
schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('scriptable', '%description -l en_US scriptable -> scrip table, scrip-table, script able') schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('zsh', '%description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash') schemesh.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('pdksh', '%description -l en_US pdksh -> pinkish') schemesh.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary countdown schemesh.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary schemesh schemesh.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/schemesh/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 17 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- schemesh: /usr/lib64/schemesh/libschemesh_0.8.3.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cosmos72/schemesh/archive/v0.8.3/schemesh-0.8.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ed6698bff63f8e8887ed6ee3cb5df49f439b6e1792e56b16adc16b6a2ad055be CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ed6698bff63f8e8887ed6ee3cb5df49f439b6e1792e56b16adc16b6a2ad055be
Requires -------- schemesh (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) liblz4.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0.2)(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.2.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- schemesh: schemesh schemesh(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2353163 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131233907 b) Do let upstream know about the failure on s390x and add a comment in the spec file referencing this c) Approved. Please attend to (b) before import.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
--- Comment #17 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com ---
b) Do let upstream know about the failure on s390x and add a comment in the spec file referencing this
This is not the fault of upstream, but the maintainer/upstream of Chez-Scheme.
I see that there are no bug of chez-scheme that tracks this, I will create one and ask if Chez-Scheme have looked into this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2358214
--- Comment #18 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review.
I will wait for bug 2358214 to be fixed before import, I assume it should be fixed quickly.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358214 [Bug 2358214] chez-scheme excludearch on s390x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/schemesh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163 Bug 2353163 depends on bug 2358214, which changed state.
Bug 2358214 Summary: chez-scheme excludearch on s390x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358214
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353163
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-04-22 13:08:57
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com