This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: 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", "GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/dokkoo/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/dokkoo [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/dokkoo [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 40960 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define __spec_install_post %{nil}, %define __os_install_post %{_dbpath}/brp-compress, %define debug_package %{nil} [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]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.9 starting (python version = 3.9.1, NVR = mock-2.9-1.fc33)... Start: init plugins INFO: tmpfs initialized INFO: selinux enabled INFO: chroot_scan: initialized INFO: compress_logs: initialized Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: mounting tmpfs at /var/lib/mock/fedora-eln-aarch64/root. INFO: reusing tmpfs at /var/lib/mock/fedora-eln-aarch64/root. INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.9 INFO: Mock Version: 2.9 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/dokkoo-0.3.0-1d67bfb.el110.aarch64.rpm WARNING: Dnf command failed, retrying, attempt #2, sleeping 10s WARNING: Dnf command failed, retrying, attempt #3, sleeping 10s ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-eln-aarch64/root/ --releasever eln --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/dokkoo-0.3.0-1d67bfb.el110.aarch64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: dokkoo-0.3.0-1d67bfb.el110.aarch64.rpm dokkoo-0.3.0-1d67bfb.el110.src.rpm dokkoo.aarch64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Mokk -> Monk, Mock, Amok dokkoo.aarch64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Mokk (Macro Output Key Kit) implementation written in Rust. dokkoo.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Mokk -> Monk, Mock, Amok dokkoo.aarch64: E: no-changelogname-tag dokkoo.aarch64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/dokkoo dokkoo.aarch64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/libdokkoo.so dokkoo.aarch64: W: no-soname /usr/lib/libdokkoo.so dokkoo.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dokkoo dokkoo.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Mokk -> Monk, Mock, Amok dokkoo.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Mokk (Macro Output Key Kit) implementation written in Rust. dokkoo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Mokk -> Monk, Mock, Amok dokkoo.src: E: no-changelogname-tag dokkoo.src:33: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/libdokkoo.so dokkoo.src: W: no-%build-section dokkoo.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dokkoo-0.3.0.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 12 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- dokkoo: /usr/lib/libdokkoo.so Requires -------- dokkoo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- dokkoo: dokkoo dokkoo(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name dokkoo --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-eln-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Java, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, SugarActivity, PHP, fonts, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH