https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2432762
--- Comment #6 from Jeremy Linton <[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]: 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". 207 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in JL: It seems that many of the project files don't explicitly mention a license that doesn't change the overall project license which notes it is licensed as LGPL if statically linked with libdwarf, but that isn't the case with the current build. [X}: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. JL: Looks that way, final build on aarch64 includes PAC,BTI,GCS indicating the -mbranch-protection flags are working their way through the build correctly. [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. JL: Changelog includes some bogus email/commit and should be cleaned up before final check-in. [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. JL: The use of rpmautospec/etc has created a few comment/style issues that while I don't believe are wrong could use some minor tweaking before final. [-]: 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. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages which are apparently fine But I think its complaining about the libcpptrace.so.1 which shouldn't be in the -devel package, and the associated missing ldconfig/symlink error goes with it. [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 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. [X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in cpptrace-devel [X]: 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. JL: I don't see an upstream signature, so I'm not going to fail this, but i personally tend to believe in these cases that using the release git SHA and downloading it that way: ex: https://github.com/jeremy-rifkin/cpptrace/archive/%{cpptrace_tag}.tar.gz tends to kill a few of the obvious version shenanigans (knowing of course that the look-aside also solves this to a certain extent) [X]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. JL: Gonna fail this one, because gtest is already packaged and there are packages that depend on it, maybe a quick tweak allows the tests to run? [X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: I guess i don't know what this is accomplishing/aka why its needed here. [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. ===== 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: cpptrace-1.0.4-1.fc45.aarch64.rpm cpptrace-devel-1.0.4-1.fc45.aarch64.rpm cpptrace-1.0.4-1.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/tmpvgj2qst1')] checks: 32, packages: 3 cpptrace.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('stacktrace', 'Summary(en_US) stacktrace -> stack trace, stack-trace, racetrack') cpptrace.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('stacktrace', '%description -l en_US stacktrace -> stack trace, stack-trace, racetrack') cpptrace.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS') cpptrace.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('stacktraces', '%description -l en_US stacktraces -> stack traces, stack-traces, racetracks') cpptrace.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('triaging', '%description -l en_US triaging -> trialing, stringing, training') cpptrace.src: E: spelling-error ('stacktrace', 'Summary(en_US) stacktrace -> stack trace, stack-trace, racetrack') cpptrace.src: E: spelling-error ('stacktrace', '%description -l en_US stacktrace -> stack trace, stack-trace, racetrack') cpptrace.src: E: spelling-error ('macOS', '%description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS') cpptrace.src: E: spelling-error ('stacktraces', '%description -l en_US stacktraces -> stack traces, stack-traces, racetracks') cpptrace.src: E: spelling-error ('triaging', '%description -l en_US triaging -> trialing, stringing, training') cpptrace.aarch64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libcpptrace.so.1.0.4 cpptrace.aarch64: W: no-documentation cpptrace-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation cpptrace.aarch64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Cpptrace cpptrace.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Cpptrace cpptrace-devel.aarch64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libcpptrace.so.1 libcpptrace.so.1.0.4 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 5 warnings, 19 filtered, 11 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: cpptrace-debuginfo-1.0.4-1.fc45.aarch64.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/tmpx1b12s3r')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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 cpptrace.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('stacktrace', 'Summary(en_US) stacktrace -> stack trace, stack-trace, backtrace') cpptrace.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('stacktrace', '%description -l en_US stacktrace -> stack trace, stack-trace, backtrace') cpptrace.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('stacktraces', '%description -l en_US stacktraces -> stack traces, stack-traces, backtraces') cpptrace.aarch64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libcpptrace.so.1.0.4 cpptrace.aarch64: W: no-documentation cpptrace-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation cpptrace.aarch64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Cpptrace cpptrace-devel.aarch64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libcpptrace.so.1 libcpptrace.so.1.0.4 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings, 21 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jeremy-rifkin/cpptrace/archive/refs/tags/v1.0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5c9f5b301e903714a4d01f1057b9543fa540f7bfcc5e3f8bd1748e652e24f9ea CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5c9f5b301e903714a4d01f1057b9543fa540f7bfcc5e3f8bd1748e652e24f9ea Requires -------- cpptrace (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdwarf.so.2()(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_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) cpptrace-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(aarch-64) libcpptrace.so.1()(64bit) libzstd-devel Provides -------- cpptrace: cpptrace cpptrace(aarch-64) libcpptrace.so.1()(64bit) cpptrace-devel: cmake(cpptrace) cpptrace-devel cpptrace-devel(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2432762 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, PHP, Java 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=2432762 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202432762%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ 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
