https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2385991
Maxwell G <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #16 from Maxwell G <[email protected]> --- I'll take over this review, as it seems to be stalled. Fedora review template at <https://fedorapeople.org/~gotmax23/reviews/hare-0.26.0/hare/>. I applied https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/pull-request/533 locally so this would work. Search for "NOTE" for my comments. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== 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. [!]: 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* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "Mozilla Public License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or Mozilla Public License 2.0", "MIT License", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License and/or Mozilla Public License 2.0". 201 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gotmax/dev/packaging/reviews/hare-0.26.0/built/hare/licensecheck.txt I see that the main package is licensed under GPL3 and the stdlib is licensed under MPL. As for the rpm-macros package, it's fine to license it under MIT, but the package needs to include the MIT license text in %license, in that case. For the filesystem package, I'd choose LicenseRef-Not-Copyrightable as the license, since it doesn't include any code at all. In the future, you may also want to consider splitting the macros and filesystem package into a separate SRPM to make them easier to maintain. Feel free to ping me for future package reviews. For now, I am focussing on the packaging itself. I gave the RPM macro/generator code a cursory look and will leave the rest of that review to the FPC Guidelines PR review. It looks like there's some other code with MIT and BSD license headers. See <https://fedorapeople.org/~gotmax23/reviews/hare-0.26.0/hare/licensecheck.txt>. You need the appropriate AND statements to account for these and a short comment above the License: statement outlining which license applies to which code. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. NOTE: Not entirely. See the above note. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs, /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d, /usr/lib/rpm NOTE: This is fine. The rpm package owns these directories. [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. NOTE: Where does the tzdata requirement come from? Can you add a comment above it? Does it need to be repeated in both hare and hare-stdlib? [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. [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. NOTE: %hare_arches is used. This is fine. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). NOTE: "name-repeated-in-summary Hare" should be fixed (i.e., remove "hare" from the package Summary). [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3640 bytes in 2 files. [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. This is not a requirement but it would be good if the embedded MIT and BSD headers were in separate text files that could be marked with %license. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in hare- stdlib , hare-rpm-macros , hare-filesystem NOTE: This check is wrong. All those subpackages are noarch, so we can't use %__isa dependent Requires. [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. NOTE: Please update to 0.26.0.1 [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. NOTE: A short comment above the Patch invocation would be suitable. [-]: 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. NOTE: hare/qbe does not support every arch. This is fine. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. NOTE: It'd be preferable to sed or patch the Makefile so -p is passed to install to preserve timestamps. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/gotmax/dev/packaging/reviews/hare-0.26.0/built/hare/srpm- unpacked/hare.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Other notes: - I see there's a `# XXX: HARETEST_INCLUDE=slow` comment. What's the story there? - Definitely not a blocker, but I prefer the var:method(...) syntax in lua over the type.method(var, ...) syntax (e.g., macros.hare_arches:gmatch(...) instead of string.gmatch(macros.hare_arches, ...)) Rpmlint ------- Checking: hare-0.26.0-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm hare-stdlib-0.26.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm hare-rpm-macros-0.26.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm hare-filesystem-0.26.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm hare-0.26.0-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpwib85_tt')] checks: 32, packages: 5 hare-stdlib.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/src/hare/stdlib/rt/+aarch64/cpuid.s hare-stdlib.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/src/hare/stdlib/rt/+riscv64/cpuid.s hare.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 0001-hare-parse-fix-crash-on-invalid-input.patch hare-rpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib hare-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation hare-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation hare.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Hare hare.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Hare 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings, 208 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: hare-debuginfo-0.26.0-1.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-legacy-licenses.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/tmpy7jyw232')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "hare-stdlib". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "hare-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "hare-rpm-macros". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "hare". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "hare-filesystem". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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: 5 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/hare/archive/0.26.0.tar.gz#/hare-0.26.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 72a0f05e172523df333b2cce4c3bf8181a05d71a62531b89565e9913b2430cae CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 525ee699bdbade390eb1e35525ab9b5b3032c5f42cddce49d9176bbdc9172d04 However, diff -r shows no differences Requires -------- hare (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): binutils hare-filesystem hare-rpm-macros hare-stdlib harec libc.so.6()(64bit) qbe rtld(GNU_HASH) tzdata hare-stdlib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hare-filesystem tzdata hare-rpm-macros (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh hare-filesystem (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- hare: hare hare(x86-64) hare-stdlib: hare-stdlib hare-rpm-macros: hare-rpm-macros rpm_macro(_hare_dynamic) rpm_macro(build_hareflags) rpm_macro(hare_buildrequires) rpm_macro(hare_ldlinkflags) rpm_macro(hare_moddir) rpm_macro(hare_srcdir) rpm_macro(hare_stdlib) rpm_macro(hare_tooldir) hare-filesystem: hare-filesystem Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -prn hare Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, C/C++, Perl, Haskell, fonts, Java, R, Ocaml, PHP 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=2385991 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202385991%23c16 -- _______________________________________________ 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
