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 a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'Artistic License 2.0'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 ===== 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64, /usr/share, /usr, /usr/bin [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share, /usr/lib64, /usr, /usr/bin [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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 Perl: [ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Vendor: Trizen See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_tags_and_sections [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pipe-viewer-0.5.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm pipe-viewer-0.5.0-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp35ufebpm')] checks: 32, packages: 2 pipe-viewer.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Application for searching and playing videos from YouTube. pipe-viewer.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Application for searching and playing videos from YouTube. pipe-viewer.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man pipe-viewer.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1 pipe-viewer.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man3 pipe-viewer.noarch: W: perl-temp-file /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/WWW/PipeViewer/.packlist pipe-viewer.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/gtk-pipe-viewer 555 pipe-viewer.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/pipe-viewer 555 pipe-viewer.noarch: E: noarch-with-lib64 pipe-viewer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gtk-pipe-viewer pipe-viewer.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag pipe-viewer.src: E: no-changelogname-tag pipe-viewer.spec:53: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} pipe-viewer.spec:58: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/* pipe-viewer.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic License 2.0 pipe-viewer.src: W: invalid-license Artistic License 2.0 pipe-viewer.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/WWW/PipeViewer/.packlist pipe-viewer.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 121653 pipe-viewer.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/share/dist/WWW-PipeViewer/gtk-pipe-viewer.desktop /usr/share/applications/gtk-pipe-viewer.desktop pipe-viewer.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/pixmaps/gtk-pipe-viewer.png /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/share/dist/WWW-PipeViewer/icons/gtk-pipe-viewer.png pipe-viewer.noarch: E: description-line-too-long - This parses the YouTube website directly and relies on the invidious instances only as a fallback method. pipe-viewer.src: E: description-line-too-long - This parses the YouTube website directly and relies on the invidious instances only as a fallback method. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 11 warnings, 7 filtered, 11 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "pipe-viewer". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 checks: 32, packages: 1 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/trizen/pipe-viewer/archive/0.5.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 86945f64485a0559dbe3d6e0000f4f2e5f604c13aae5356efff791256fbb88d1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 86945f64485a0559dbe3d6e0000f4f2e5f604c13aae5356efff791256fbb88d1 Requires -------- pipe-viewer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(Data::Dump) perl(JSON) perl(JSON::XS) perl(LWP::Protocol::https) perl(Memoize) perl(Parallel::ForkManager) perl(Term::ReadLine::Gnu) perl(Time::Piece) perl(Unicode::LineBreak) perl-libwww-perl Provides -------- pipe-viewer: application() application(gtk-pipe-viewer.desktop) pipe-viewer Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name pipe-viewer --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, Python, C/C++, PHP, SugarActivity, R, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH