https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2450681
Petr Khartskhaev <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL|https://github.com/pgpartma |https://github.com/pgpartma |n/%{extension} |n/pg_partman Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #20 from Petr Khartskhaev <[email protected]> --- The package looks good and builds in Mock. Reviewer Notes: - unversioned .so file is expected behavior and is installed to the private %{_libdir}/pgsql directory. - missing %check section: justified in the spec file, testing is handled during CI - conflicts are justified as this is a standard mechanism to prevent multiple extension versions. - Arch-ed rpms have a total of 8048640 bytes in /usr/share: they are sql files required for the package to function correctly, no point in putting them elsewhere Below is the filled in review template: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "PostgreSQL License", "*No copyright* PostgreSQL License". 239 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/postgresql18-pg_partman/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/postgresql [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10101 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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 pg_partman [x]: 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. [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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 8048640 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pg_partman-5.4.3-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm pg_partman-doc-5.4.3-1.fc45.noarch.rpm postgresql18-pg_partman-5.4.3-1.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/tmpbxo5v7j_')] checks: 32, packages: 3 postgresql18-pg_partman.spec:53: W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{extension}-any postgresql18-pg_partman.spec:105: W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{extension}-doc-any pg_partman-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized postgresql18-pg_partman documentation pg_partman.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('cron', '%description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone') postgresql18-pg_partman.src: E: spelling-error ('cron', '%description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone') postgresql18-pg_partman.spec: W: specfile-warning sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory pg_partman.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary check_unique_constraint.py pg_partman.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dump_partition.py pg_partman.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vacuum_maintenance.py postgresql18-pg_partman.spec: W: no-%check-section 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings, 12 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "pg_partman". ============================ 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "pg_partman-doc". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Unversioned so-files -------------------- pg_partman: /usr/lib64/pgsql/pg_partman_bgw.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pgpartman/pg_partman/archive/refs/tags/v5.4.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c52e3b8cf80d306468f48fbdb1905e4c2574bf8362240af57aebbbf9e18c6fe2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c52e3b8cf80d306468f48fbdb1905e4c2574bf8362240af57aebbbf9e18c6fe2 Requires -------- pg_partman (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 libc.so.6()(64bit) postgresql18-server rtld(GNU_HASH) pg_partman-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pg_partman Provides -------- pg_partman: pg_partman pg_partman(x86-64) pg_partman-any postgresql-pg_partman postgresql18-pg_partman pg_partman-doc: pg_partman-doc pg_partman-doc-any postgresql-pg_partman-doc postgresql18-pg_partman-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name postgresql18-pg_partman --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, PHP, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Python, Perl, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2450681 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202450681%23c20 -- _______________________________________________ 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
