https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2424814
Georg Sauthoff <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Georg Sauthoff <[email protected]> --- Yes, you are right, since the project includes jsmn.h unconventionally (`#include "../jsmn/jsmn.h"`), it's indeed needed. I missed to double-check that before sending my comment. --- The fedora-report output (I mark manual-check items I checked manually with '[P]'): Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [P]: 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: [P]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [P]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU Free Documentation License v1.3 or later", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "GNU General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2". 942 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/juser/libredwg/libredwg/licensecheck.txt [P]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [P]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [P]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [P]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [P-]: Changelog in prescribed format. [P]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [P-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [P]: Development files must be in a -devel package [P]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [P]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [P]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [P]: Package does not generate any conflict. [P]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [P-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [P]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [P]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [P-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [P]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [P]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [P]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 968727 bytes in 5 files. [P]: 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]: 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: [P-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [P]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [P]: Package functions as described. [P!]: Latest version is packaged. [P]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [P]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [P]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [P!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1187840 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: libredwg-0.13.3-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm libredwg-devel-0.13.3-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm libredwg-0.13.3-1.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/tmpw3hpqsax')] checks: 32, packages: 3 libredwg.src: E: spelling-error ('dxf', '%description -l en_US dxf -> def') libredwg.src: E: spelling-error ('json', '%description -l en_US json -> son, j son, soon') libredwg.src: E: spelling-error ('rewriter', '%description -l en_US rewriter -> rewrite, rewrites, re writer') libredwg.src: E: spelling-error ('saveas', "%description -l en_US saveas -> saves, savers, save's") libredwg.src: E: spelling-error ('dwggrep', '%description -l en_US dwggrep -> grepped') libredwg.src: E: spelling-error ('dwglayer', '%description -l en_US dwglayer -> waylayer') libredwg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dxf', '%description -l en_US dxf -> def') libredwg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('json', '%description -l en_US json -> son, j son, soon') libredwg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('rewriter', '%description -l en_US rewriter -> rewrite, rewrites, re writer') libredwg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('saveas', "%description -l en_US saveas -> saves, savers, save's") libredwg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dwglayer', '%description -l en_US dwglayer -> waylayer') libredwg.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/libredwg/load_dwg.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 0 warnings, 62 filtered, 12 badness; has taken 1.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libredwg-debuginfo-0.13.3-1.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/tmp9j4juu0f')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 33 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.6 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 libredwg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dxf', '%description -l en_US dxf -> def') libredwg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('json', '%description -l en_US json -> son, j son, soon') libredwg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('rewriter', '%description -l en_US rewriter -> rewrite, rewrites, re writer') libredwg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('saveas', '%description -l en_US saveas -> saves, savers, save as') libredwg.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('dwglayer', '%description -l en_US dwglayer -> delayer') libredwg.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/libredwg/load_dwg.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings, 103 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 1.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/libredwg/libredwg-0.13.3.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 83f1f6e78a744777a481ff4520e4cef3f8ac4b2c1c25671077ca12fe81e8816e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 83f1f6e78a744777a481ff4520e4cef3f8ac4b2c1c25671077ca12fe81e8816e https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/libredwg/libredwg-0.13.3.tar.xz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 64f6a5a30f47c830399a6ab860d2b59d9b322bbb5aec794710864ea290ddac09 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 64f6a5a30f47c830399a6ab860d2b59d9b322bbb5aec794710864ea290ddac09 https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-keyring.gpg : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 879648d71da7b3adf9f7d06c30a052393d0dec1e17d3cc335c827412504feefa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 879648d71da7b3adf9f7d06c30a052393d0dec1e17d3cc335c827412504feefa Requires -------- libredwg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpcre2-16.so.0()(64bit) libpcre2-16.so.0(PCRE2_10.47)(64bit) libpcre2-8.so.0()(64bit) libpcre2-8.so.0(PCRE2_10.47)(64bit) libps.so.0()(64bit) libredwg.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libredwg-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libredwg(x86-64) libredwg.so.0()(64bit) Provides -------- libredwg: libredwg libredwg(x86-64) libredwg.so.0()(64bit) libredwg-devel: libredwg-devel libredwg-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libredwg) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n libredwg-0.13.3-1.fc43.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, R, PHP, fonts, Python, Java, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH --- Most relevant points: [P!]: Latest version is packaged. [P!]: %check is present and all tests pass. I reviewed 0.13.3, however 0.13.4. was released on March. 18th. However, judging from the release notes, the changes shouldn't affect packaging in a significant way. Some tests are disabled, which is fair, given the project's development status. I trust the maintainer to revisit the test set when integrating follow-up upstream releases. I thus approve this request. -- 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=2424814 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202424814%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ 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
