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: ======= - 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 - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'MIT, Apache-2.0'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: blisp-libs. Illegal package name: blisp-libs. Does not provide -static: blisp-libs. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [ ]: 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. 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. [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %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]: 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]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in blisp- devel , blisp-libs [ ]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: blisp-0.0.4-1.fc39.aarch64.rpm blisp-devel-0.0.4-1.fc39.aarch64.rpm blisp-libs-0.0.4-1.fc39.aarch64.rpm blisp-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc39.aarch64.rpm blisp-debugsource-0.0.4-1.fc39.aarch64.rpm blisp-0.0.4-1.fc39.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpf46fq9c3')] checks: 31, packages: 6 blisp-libs.aarch64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libblisp.a blisp.aarch64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary blisp blisp.aarch64: W: no-documentation blisp-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation blisp.aarch64: W: invalid-license MIT, Apache-2.0 blisp.src: W: invalid-license MIT, Apache-2.0 blisp-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license MIT, Apache-2.0 blisp-debugsource.aarch64: W: invalid-license MIT, Apache-2.0 blisp-devel.aarch64: W: invalid-license MIT, Apache-2.0 blisp-libs.aarch64: W: invalid-license MIT, Apache-2.0 blisp.aarch64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libserialport blisp-libs.aarch64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libblisp.a blisp-libs.aarch64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libblisp.so blisp-devel.aarch64: W: description-shorter-than-summary 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: blisp-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc39.aarch64.rpm blisp-libs-debuginfo-0.0.4-1.fc39.aarch64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpovuekhck')] checks: 31, packages: 2 blisp-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license MIT, Apache-2.0 blisp-libs-debuginfo.aarch64: W: invalid-license MIT, Apache-2.0 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "blisp-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "blisp-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "blisp". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "blisp-libs-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "blisp-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "blisp-libs". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 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: 31, packages: 6 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- blisp-libs: /usr/lib64/libblisp.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pine64/blisp/archive/v0.0.4/blisp-0.0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 288a8165f7dce604657f79ee8eea895cc2fa4e4676de5df9853177defd77cf78 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 288a8165f7dce604657f79ee8eea895cc2fa4e4676de5df9853177defd77cf78 Requires -------- blisp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): argtable3 ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libargtable3.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfile_parsers.so()(64bit) libserialport libserialport.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) blisp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): blisp(aarch-64) blisp-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): blisp(aarch-64) ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libblisp.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libserialport.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) blisp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): blisp-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- blisp: blisp blisp(aarch-64) blisp-devel: blisp-devel blisp-devel(aarch-64) blisp-libs: blisp-libs blisp-libs(aarch-64) libblisp.so.1()(64bit) blisp-debuginfo: blisp-debuginfo blisp-debuginfo(aarch-64) debuginfo(build-id) blisp-debugsource: blisp-debugsource blisp-debugsource(aarch-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 blisp --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-39-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Java, PHP, Python, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH