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:
=======
- Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
package has .info files.
Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in cpio
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_texinfo
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cpio,
https://src.fedoraproject.org/tests/cpio
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
[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]: 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.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU
General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License
v3.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License, Version
3", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) [generated file]", "FSF
Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0
or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)",
"MIT License [generated file]", "GNU Free Documentation License v1.2
or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU Lesser General
Public License GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* [generated
file]", "GNU General Public License", "[generated file]", "GNU Lesser
General Public License v3.0 or later". 102 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
rpmbuild/results/cpio/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[ ]: 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 112640 bytes in 6 files.
[ ]: 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 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 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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 1003520 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: cpio-2.13-11.fc36.x86_64.rpm
cpio-debuginfo-2.13-11.fc36.x86_64.rpm
cpio-debugsource-2.13-11.fc36.x86_64.rpm
cpio-2.13-11.fc36.src.rpm
cpio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US timestamps -> time stamps, time-stamps, times tamps
cpio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crc -> cc, arc, cry
cpio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US timestamps -> time stamps, time-stamps, times tamps
cpio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crc -> cc, arc, cry
cpio.src:55: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(gnulib)
cpio.src:56: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(paxutils)
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: cpio-debuginfo-2.13-11.fc36.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums
----------------
https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/cpio/cpio-2.13.tar.bz2 :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : eab5bdc5ae1df285c59f2a4f140a98fc33678a0bf61bdba67d9436ae26b46f6d
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : eab5bdc5ae1df285c59f2a4f140a98fc33678a0bf61bdba67d9436ae26b46f6d
Requires
--------
cpio (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
cpio-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
cpio-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
cpio:
/bin/cpio
bundled(gnulib)
bundled(paxutils)
cpio
cpio(x86-64)
cpio-debuginfo:
cpio-debuginfo
cpio-debuginfo(x86-64)
debuginfo(build-id)
cpio-debugsource:
cpio-debugsource
cpio-debugsource(x86-64)
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 cpio --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, fonts, Haskell, R, Java, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH