[Bug 2217146] New: Review Request: boxfort - Convenient & cross-platform sandboxing C library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
Bug ID: 2217146 Summary: Review Request: boxfort - Convenient & cross-platform sandboxing C library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: topazus@outlook.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxfort.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxfort-0.1.4-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: Convenient & cross-platform sandboxing C library
Fedora Account System Username: topazus
koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102521560
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxfort.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxfort-0.1.4-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: Convenient & cross-platform sandboxing C library
Fedora Account System Username: topazus
koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102522213
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6969467 (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=2217146
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|AutomationTriaged | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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 [-]: 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2217146-boxfort/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 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 2238 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in boxfort- devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: boxfort-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm boxfort-devel-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm boxfort-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm boxfort-debugsource-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm boxfort-0.1.4-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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/tmp8cjbb6nx')] checks: 32, packages: 5
boxfort.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging') boxfort.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging') boxfort.src: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging') boxfort.src: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging') boxfort.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: boxfort-build-shared-lib.patch 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 30 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: boxfort-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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/tmprjizzxyj')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 4
boxfort.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.1.4 main (/usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.1.4) boxfort.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging') boxfort.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging') 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 26 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Snaipe/BoxFort/archive/v0.1.4/BoxFort-0.1.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 67129d585722739e78af766a9ce5fb91f1359740e3b12a2ac0c2f8d7049be66b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 67129d585722739e78af766a9ce5fb91f1359740e3b12a2ac0c2f8d7049be66b
Requires -------- boxfort (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
boxfort-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config boxfort libboxfort.so.0.1()(64bit)
boxfort-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
boxfort-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- boxfort: boxfort boxfort(aarch-64) libboxfort.so.0.1()(64bit)
boxfort-devel: boxfort-devel boxfort-devel(aarch-64) pkgconfig(boxfort)
boxfort-debuginfo: boxfort-debuginfo boxfort-debuginfo(aarch-64) debuginfo(build-id) libboxfort.so.0.1.4-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.debug()(64bit)
boxfort-debugsource: boxfort-debugsource boxfort-debugsource(aarch-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2217146 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, Python, Java, R, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) README.md is not needed in the devel package, it is in the main package which the devel package requires b) Please remove the extra %license in the file listing for the devel package, main package has license and devel package requires main package. c) For the devel package please use: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} instead of Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} d) There is a warning boxfort.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.1.4 main (/usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.1.4) Running $ ld libboxfort.so.0.1.4 ld: warning: cannot find entry symbol _start; not setting start address ld: libboxfort.so.0.1.4: undefined reference to `main'
Maybe this is something to report upstream?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
--- Comment #4 from Felix Wang topazus@outlook.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/test-review/fedor... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/test-review/fedor...
The comments of a-c) has been resolved. The comment d), it seems this rpmlint issue now. https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/test-review/fedor...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2030991 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2030991&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6969467 to 7400776
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7400776 (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=2217146
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- [fedora-review-service-build]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217146
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8480472 (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=2217146
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #10 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]: 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /FedoraPackaging/reviews/boxfort/2217146-boxfort/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. [ ]: 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]: 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 1119 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: boxfort-0.1.4-1.20240503git1018a44.fc42.x86_64.rpm boxfort-devel-0.1.4-1.20240503git1018a44.fc42.x86_64.rpm boxfort-0.1.4-1.20240503git1018a44.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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/tmpgqf0l829')] checks: 32, packages: 3
boxfort.src: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging') boxfort.src: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging') boxfort.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging') boxfort.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging') boxfort-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 21 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.4 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: boxfort-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.20240503git1018a44.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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/tmph03qgzox')] checks: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 3
boxfort.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.0.1 main (/usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.0.1) boxfort.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging') boxfort.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging') boxfort-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 23 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 1.7 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Snaipe/BoxFort/archive/1018a44e63b57e9ffc3b8b68b6c8a8aa8f... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0044cebdfb77fb1dc7c6984c8dec195f93a4361aef3340960646bdabcbe67aec CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0044cebdfb77fb1dc7c6984c8dec195f93a4361aef3340960646bdabcbe67aec
Requires -------- boxfort (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
boxfort-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config boxfort(x86-64) libboxfort.so.0()(64bit)
Provides -------- boxfort: boxfort boxfort(x86-64) libboxfort.so.0()(64bit)
boxfort-devel: boxfort-devel boxfort-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(boxfort)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2217146 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, Java, PHP, Perl, Python, Haskell, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Koji build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=127645718 b) Approved.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com