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: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'ASL 2.0'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: 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]: 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: [ ]: 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "Apache License and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "zlib License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0", "LaTeX Project Public License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 5721 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/vosk-api/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib, /usr/lib64, /usr/share/doc, /usr/include, /usr/share/licenses, /usr, /usr/share [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib, /usr/lib64, /usr/share/doc, /usr/include, /usr/share/licenses, /usr, /usr/share [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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 1107 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [ ]: 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in vosk- api-devel , vosk-model-small-en-us [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: 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]: 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. [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 70942720 bytes in /usr/share vosk- model-small-en-us-0.3.45-1.fc41.ppc64le.rpm:70922240 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: vosk-api-0.3.45-1.fc41.ppc64le.rpm vosk-api-devel-0.3.45-1.fc41.ppc64le.rpm vosk-model-small-en-us-0.3.45-1.fc41.ppc64le.rpm vosk-api-0.3.45-1.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/tmpeelpfj4n')] checks: 32, packages: 4 vosk-api-devel.ppc64le: W: summary-not-capitalized vosk-api development libraries vosk-api-devel.ppc64le: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libvosk.so vosk-api-devel.ppc64le: W: no-documentation vosk-model-small-en-us.ppc64le: W: no-documentation vosk-api.ppc64le: E: no-binary vosk-model-small-en-us.ppc64le: E: no-binary vosk-api.spec:70: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 19 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 4.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "vosk-api". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "vosk-model-small-en-us". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "vosk-api-devel". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 3 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://alphacephei.com/vosk/models/vosk-model-small-en-us-0.15.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 30f26242c4eb449f948e42cb302dd7a686cb29a3423a8367f99ff41780942498 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 30f26242c4eb449f948e42cb302dd7a686cb29a3423a8367f99ff41780942498 https://github.com/alphacep/kaldi/archive/93ef0019b847272a239fbb485ef97f29feb1d587.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f47a996af546884a8e1cb961323b796c5c238c1bbeabaf657bb300b760e431b2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f47a996af546884a8e1cb961323b796c5c238c1bbeabaf657bb300b760e431b2 https://github.com/alphacep/vosk-api/archive/v0.3.45/vosk-api-0.3.45.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 930fb9cfa6c1b3035d3730feee7d670fb893caa0c71bd2159ee7623102674c26 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 930fb9cfa6c1b3035d3730feee7d670fb893caa0c71bd2159ee7623102674c26 Requires -------- vosk-api (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vosk-api-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfst.so.26()(64bit) libfstngram.so.26()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) vosk-api(ppc-64) vosk-model-small-en-us (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- vosk-api: vosk-api vosk-api(ppc-64) vosk-api-devel: libvosk.so()(64bit) vosk-api-devel vosk-api-devel(ppc-64) vosk-model-small-en-us: vosk-model-small-en-us vosk-model-small-en-us(ppc-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name vosk-api --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-ppc64le Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Java, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH