https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713767
--- Comment #19 from Björn Persson <bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se> --- Issues to be resolved ===================== · The man pages are BSD-licensed, so BSD must be mentioned in the license tag of libnbd-devel. At least in this case the LGPL does not apply to the BSD-licensed files. · I'm awaiting your decision on a license for the examples. Do you want to use CC0 or 0BSD? (I don't see 0BSD in the list of good licenses by the way.) As I understand it you can call it Public Domain only if the files explicitly say "public domain": https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_public_domain · I still need to study how GnuTLS works to understand the situation with the crypto policy. I hope you'll get an answer on the devel list. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory. → That's the Python module so that's correct. [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]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: 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", "LGPL (v2)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)". 50 files have unknown license. → Files that go into the library are LGPLv2+ and BSD, which combine into LGPLv2+, so the main license tag is probably OK. The man pages are BSD, which must be mentioned in the license tag of libnbd-devel. The license of the examples remains to determine. GPL and various free and permissive licenses occur in helper files and tests, and don't affect the license tags. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. → I haven't tested them in GDB but it looks like the expected files are present. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. → The scratch build worked on all six arches. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 6 files. → That's not large in my opinion. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines → no problems other than the licensing and possibly the crypto policy [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 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 Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. → no eggs [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. → I don't have the means to try it with a reasonable amount of work. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. → No other languages are available as far as I know. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. → make_build isn't used but _smp_mflags is, so that's OK. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libnbd-0.1-3.fc31.x86_64.rpm libnbd-devel-0.1-3.fc31.x86_64.rpm python3-libnbd-0.1-3.fc31.x86_64.rpm libnbd-debuginfo-0.1-3.fc31.x86_64.rpm libnbd-debugsource-0.1-3.fc31.x86_64.rpm libnbd-0.1-3.fc31.src.rpm libnbd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored libnbd.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1 /usr/lib64/libnbd.so.0.0.0 gnutls_priority_set_direct python3-libnbd.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-libnbd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nbdsh libnbd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libnbd-debuginfo-0.1-3.fc31.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-libnbd.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-libnbd.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nbdsh → I understand that the next release will include a man page. That's satisfactory. libnbd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multithreaded -> multicolored → Ignore. libnbd.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1 /usr/lib64/libnbd.so.0.0.0 gnutls_priority_set_direct → As I said, I need to study this more. 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- libnbd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libnbd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libnbd(x86-64) libnbd.so.0()(64bit) python3-libnbd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30()(64bit) libnbd(x86-64) libnbd.so.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) libnbd-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libnbd-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libnbd: libnbd libnbd(x86-64) libnbd.so.0()(64bit) libnbd-devel: libnbd-devel libnbd-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libnbd) python3-libnbd: python3-libnbd python3-libnbd(x86-64) libnbd-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libnbd-debuginfo libnbd-debuginfo(x86-64) libnbd-debugsource: libnbd-debugsource libnbd-debugsource(x86-64) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
