https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2446921
--- Comment #12 from Benson Muite <[email protected]> --- 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]: 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License". 67 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/openabf/2446921- openabf/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/OpenABF [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/OpenABF, /usr/share/doc/openabf [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. [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. [-]: 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 15456 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in openabf- 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]: 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 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: openabf-2.0.0^20260312git894fcb4-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm openabf-devel-2.0.0^20260312git894fcb4-1.fc45.noarch.rpm openabf-doc-2.0.0^20260312git894fcb4-1.fc45.noarch.rpm openabf-2.0.0^20260312git894fcb4-1.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/tmpevwt6hx1')] checks: 32, packages: 4 openabf-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('doxygen', '%description -l en_US doxygen -> oxygen, d oxygen') openabf-devel.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib openabf-doc.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/openabf/html 644 openabf-devel.noarch: E: noarch-with-lib64 openabf.x86_64: E: no-binary openabf.spec:70: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package devel %{_libdir}/cmake/OpenABF/ 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 14 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.4 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: 3 openabf-doc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('doxygen', '%description -l en_US doxygen -> oxygen, d oxygen') openabf-devel.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib openabf-doc.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/openabf/html 644 openabf-devel.noarch: E: noarch-with-lib64 openabf.x86_64: E: no-binary 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 10 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/educelab/OpenABF/-/archive/894fcb48e5de900229ceb5707a13932916aa203a/OpenABF-894fcb4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 68648e01b575012c71ea231ec324ba06d9613ffff5a9f6078fe91513c43d2839 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 68648e01b575012c71ea231ec324ba06d9613ffff5a9f6078fe91513c43d2839 Requires -------- openabf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openabf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) openabf-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- openabf: openabf openabf(x86-64) openabf-devel: cmake(OpenABF) cmake(openabf) openabf-devel openabf-static openabf-doc: openabf-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2446921 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, Haskell, R, Java, Python, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) The package %files %license LICENSE %doc README.md is not needed. Please remove it. b) To ensure all directories are owned, please change %{_includedir}/OpenABF/OpenABF.hpp %{_libdir}/cmake/OpenABF/ to %dir %{_includedir}/OpenABF %{_includedir}/OpenABF/OpenABF.hpp %{_libdir}/cmake/OpenABF/ also change %{_docdir}/%{name}/html/ to %dir %{_docdir}/%{name} %{_docdir}/%{name}/html/ c) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=143569159 d) At the moment the documentation is not being generated. It seems latex toolchain is needed. https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9225/143569225/build.log Add: BuildRequires: /usr/bin/bibtex BuildRequires: /usr/bin/latex to the spec file. Rather than generating HTML documentation, consider generating docbook. Modify https://gitlab.com/educelab/OpenABF/-/blob/develop/docs/CMakeLists.txt to have an entry set(DOXYGEN_GENERATE_DOCBOOK NO) See: https://github.com/educelab/OpenABF/pull/70 e) Upstream repository has migrated: https://github.com/educelab/OpenABF -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2446921 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202446921%23c12 -- _______________________________________________ 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
