https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440262
Ben Beasley <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #30 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- Thanks for working through all the details here! The package is APPROVED, with a small set of corrections that weren’t enough for another round of review, but ought to be dealt with on import. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - As Daniel Berrangé wrote, %global _description %{expand: EIF configuration tool for krun-awsnitro.} is unused and should be removed. Instead, put your updated summary text directly in the Summary field, replacing Summary: krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool with Summary: EIF configuration tool for krun-awsnitro (note: no period at the end!) It looks like you already did this Summary field update in the uploaded spec file, but didn’t make a new .src.rpm afterward. None of this blocks approval, but please do correct it on import. ===== MUST items ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/20260315/2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif- ctl/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. This is no longer formally required, but it is an excellent idea. In any case, LICENSE.dependencies would satisfy the requirement. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [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 113 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. No usable tests are included, and I am not sure how to test this interactively. [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143413115 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. No usable tests are included, but everything is set up to compile and run any tests that might appear in the future. [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: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) Diff is mostly rpmautospec macro expansion, but also, it looks like the Summary was updated in the spec file without making a new .src.rpm. [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: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0-2.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp6fpa5m59')] checks: 32, packages: 2 krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.src: W: summary-not-capitalized krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-debuginfo-0.1.0-2.fc45.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpc5s8puf6')] 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: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/virtee/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/archive/v0.1.0/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a2789cb428f3e7d6a1cdaf863f30d7f68e7e82509191deda4a463b4ff5d0d837 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a2789cb428f3e7d6a1cdaf863f30d7f68e7e82509191deda4a463b4ff5d0d837 Requires -------- krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libssl.so.3()(64bit) libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/20260315/2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/srpm/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.spec 2026-03-15 12:03:48.885859025 +0000 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/20260315/2440262-krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl/srpm-unpacked/krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl.spec 2026-03-10 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,6 +1,16 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: krun-awsnitro-eif-ctl Version: 0.1.0 Release: %autorelease -Summary: EIF configuration tool for krun-awsnitro +Summary: krun-awsnitro EIF configuration tool # Apache-2.0 @@ -52,3 +62,9 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue Mar 10 2026 Tyler Fanelli <[email protected]> - 0.1.0-2 +- Specfile updates + +* Tue Mar 10 2026 Tyler Fanelli <[email protected]> - 0.1.0-1 +- initial commit +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2440262 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, R, Perl, C/C++, Java, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2440262 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202440262%23c30 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
