[Bug 2221421] New: Review Request: qrtr - Service listing daemon for Qualcomm IPC Router
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
Bug ID: 2221421 Summary: Review Request: qrtr - Service listing daemon for Qualcomm IPC Router Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: davide@cavalca.name QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/qrtr/qrtr.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/qrtr/qrtr-1.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: This package provides the userspace component for the Qualcomm IPC Router protocol, which maintains a service listing and allows peforming lookups.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103107151
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |2221422, 2221423, 2221424, | |2221425
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221422 [Bug 2221422] Review Request: tqftpserv - Trivial File Transfer Protocol server over AF_QIPCRTR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221423 [Bug 2221423] Review Request: rmtfs - Qualcomm Remote Filesystem Service Implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221424 [Bug 2221424] Review Request: qmi-ping - Ping-like utility for QMI/QRTR https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221425 [Bug 2221425] Review Request: pd-mapper - Service listing daemon for Qualcomm IPC Router
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mattia.verga@proton.me Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |mattia.verga@proton.me
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
--- Comment #2 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/qlogging- categories6/modemmanagerqt.categories See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/rpmbuild/review/2235595-kf6-modemmanager-qt/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ - Check licenses. You're packaging all license under 'LICENSES', but only a subset seems to be used in the final binary RPM (BSD-3-Clause is only used in cmake directive, CC0-1.0 is only used in gitlab ci test definitions, LGPL-3-only seems unused). Moreover, there are a couple of LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-* license files which are not recognized by Fedora licensing, please check with Fedora legal if they are to be included in the final package. - No known owner of /usr/include/KF6 I suppose this is an issue of kf6-filesystem
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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: [!]: 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or generated", "Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "BSD 3-Clause License". 69 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmbuild/review/2235595-kf6-modemmanager- qt/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/KF6 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/KF6 [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. [!]: 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. [!]: 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 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]: 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]: 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 7946 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel [?]: 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. [!]: %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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/rpmbuild/review/2235595-kf6-modemmanager-qt/srpm- unpacked/kf6-modemmanager-qt.spec See: (this test has no URL) [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: kf6-modemmanager-qt-5.240.0^20230813.164311.fa71a4d-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel-5.240.0^20230813.164311.fa71a4d-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
kf6-modemmanager-qt-debuginfo-5.240.0^20230813.164311.fa71a4d-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
kf6-modemmanager-qt-debugsource-5.240.0^20230813.164311.fa71a4d-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm kf6-modemmanager-qt-5.240.0^20230813.164311.fa71a4d-1.fc40.src.rpm ====================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpdpu1taiy')] checks: 31, packages: 5
kf6-modemmanager-qt.src: W: strange-permission kf6-modemmanager-qt.spec 600 kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation kf6-modemmanager-qt.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary kf6-modemmanager-qt.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary ======= 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s =======
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: kf6-modemmanager-qt-debuginfo-5.240.0^20230813.164311.fa71a4d-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ====================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpim7n8kw2')] checks: 31, packages: 1
======= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s =======
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 4
kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation kf6-modemmanager-qt.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/modemmanager-qt/-/archive/fa71a4d9aeca8d83... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bffb0ddb626085a129c805b547aa4484ef3e28851064cdb245ae06e4b9b63085 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b1893692862e5def2463670624b1c69eb7b75b2d1dde2f3ae78bf79bddf9c0ca diff -r also reports differences
Requires -------- kf6-modemmanager-qt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): kf6-filesystem libQt6Core.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Core.so.6(Qt_6.5)(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6()(64bit) libQt6DBus.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libQt6Xml.so.6()(64bit) libQt6Xml.so.6(Qt_6)(64bit) libc.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)
kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ModemManager-devel cmake-filesystem(x86-64) kf6-modemmanager-qt libKF6ModemManagerQt.so.6()(64bit) qt6-qtbase-devel
kf6-modemmanager-qt-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
kf6-modemmanager-qt-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- kf6-modemmanager-qt: kf6-modemmanager-qt kf6-modemmanager-qt(x86-64) libKF6ModemManagerQt.so.6()(64bit)
kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel: cmake(KF6ModemManagerQt) cmake(kf6modemmanagerqt) kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel kf6-modemmanager-qt-devel(x86-64)
kf6-modemmanager-qt-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) kf6-modemmanager-qt-debuginfo kf6-modemmanager-qt-debuginfo(x86-64)
libKF6ModemManagerQt.so.5.240.0-5.240.0^20230813.164311.fa71a4d-1.fc40.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
kf6-modemmanager-qt-debugsource: kf6-modemmanager-qt-debugsource kf6-modemmanager-qt-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235595 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Python, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
--- Comment #3 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me --- OH NO! Sorry, I've posted the wrong review. Please do not consider the above!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
--- Comment #4 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - qrtr-1.0/src/map.c is BSD-2 licensed
- the main package doesn't requires -libs, is that correct? If so, you have to add %license to main package file listing
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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]: 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. [!]: 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 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmbuild/review/2221421-qrtr/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: 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: 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in qrtr [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 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in qrtr- libs [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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: 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: qrtr-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm qrtr-libs-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm qrtr-devel-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm qrtr-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm qrtr-debugsource-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm qrtr-1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ====================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpn48xrv9q')] checks: 31, packages: 6
qrtr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qrtr-cfg qrtr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qrtr-lookup qrtr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qrtr-ns qrtr.x86_64: W: no-documentation qrtr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ======= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s =======
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: qrtr-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm qrtr-libs-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ====================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp5wnc3x5s')] checks: 31, packages: 2
======= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s =======
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 6
qrtr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qrtr-cfg qrtr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qrtr-lookup qrtr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qrtr-ns qrtr.x86_64: W: no-documentation qrtr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/andersson/qrtr/archive/v1.0/qrtr-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dc5db4872ff0d3c43b5c6d115fadc94f393c9c8c89b4246e327853b466d6c49f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dc5db4872ff0d3c43b5c6d115fadc94f393c9c8c89b4246e327853b466d6c49f
Requires -------- qrtr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
qrtr-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
qrtr-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libqrtr.so.1()(64bit) qrtr(x86-64)
qrtr-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
qrtr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- qrtr: qrtr qrtr(x86-64)
qrtr-libs: libqrtr.so.1()(64bit) qrtr-libs qrtr-libs(x86-64)
qrtr-devel: qrtr-devel qrtr-devel(x86-64)
qrtr-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) qrtr-debuginfo qrtr-debuginfo(x86-64)
qrtr-debugsource: qrtr-debugsource qrtr-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2221421 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, R, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, PHP, Python, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
--- Comment #5 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name ---
- the main package doesn't requires -libs, is that correct? If so, you have to add %license to main package file listing
It will pull it in implicitly via the soname requires, but you're right, an explicit one is more appropriate here.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
--- Comment #6 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/qrtr/qrtr.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/qrtr/qrtr-1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Changelog: - correct license breakdown - add explicit Requires for -libs to the main package - make devel package Requires -libs instead of the main package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
--- Comment #7 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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]: 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 3-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmbuild/review/2221421-qrtr/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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. [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 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in qrtr [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 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/andersson/qrtr/archive/v1.0/qrtr-1.0.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [x]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in qrtr- libs , qrtr-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: 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: qrtr-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm qrtr-libs-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm qrtr-devel-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm qrtr-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm qrtr-debugsource-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm qrtr-1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ====================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpiayi3tto')] checks: 31, packages: 6
qrtr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qrtr-cfg qrtr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qrtr-lookup qrtr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qrtr-ns qrtr.x86_64: W: no-documentation qrtr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ======= 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s =======
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: qrtr-libs-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm qrtr-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ====================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpsoyytw6b')] checks: 31, packages: 2
======= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s =======
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) /bin/sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8) ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 6
qrtr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qrtr-cfg qrtr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qrtr-lookup qrtr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qrtr-ns qrtr.x86_64: W: no-documentation qrtr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s
Requires -------- qrtr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) qrtr-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH)
qrtr-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
qrtr-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libqrtr.so.1()(64bit) qrtr-libs(x86-64)
qrtr-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
qrtr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- qrtr: qrtr qrtr(x86-64)
qrtr-libs: libqrtr.so.1()(64bit) qrtr-libs qrtr-libs(x86-64)
qrtr-devel: qrtr-devel qrtr-devel(x86-64)
qrtr-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) qrtr-debuginfo qrtr-debuginfo(x86-64)
qrtr-debugsource: qrtr-debugsource qrtr-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2221421 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, R, Python, Perl, Java, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me --- Package APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qrtr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-6a30e63424 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6a30e63424
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-09-06 01:34:37
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-6a30e63424 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-bf9726a79f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-bf9726a79f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c165f5dd0a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c165f5dd0a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-bf9726a79f has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-bf9726a79f *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-bf9726a79f
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c165f5dd0a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-c165f5dd0a *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c165f5dd0a
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-c165f5dd0a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221421
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-bf9726a79f has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com