https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684603
--- Comment #34 from Benson Muite <benson_mu...@emailplus.org> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 351 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/1684603-bCNC/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [?]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [?]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 files. [?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [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 [x]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: bCNC-0.9.14.52~20221017git523f1ec7-5.fc38.noarch.rpm bCNC-0.9.14.52~20221017git523f1ec7-5.fc38.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/tmpbu_lts6e')] checks: 31, packages: 2 bCNC.spec:41: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(fastclick) bCNC.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bCNC bCNC.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/bCNC/icons/exclamation.gif /usr/share/bCNC/icons/debug.gif bCNC.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/bCNC/icons/pan.gif /usr/share/bCNC/icons/move.gif bCNC.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/bCNC/icons/pocket.gif /usr/share/bCNC/icons/offset.gif bCNC.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/bCNC/pendant/jquery-2.1.4.min.js /usr/share/javascript/jquery/latest/jquery.min.js 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 31, packages: 1 bCNC.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bCNC bCNC.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/bCNC/icons/exclamation.gif /usr/share/bCNC/icons/debug.gif bCNC.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/bCNC/icons/pan.gif /usr/share/bCNC/icons/move.gif bCNC.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/bCNC/icons/pocket.gif /usr/share/bCNC/icons/offset.gif bCNC.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/bCNC/pendant/jquery-2.1.4.min.js /usr/share/javascript/jquery/latest/jquery.min.js 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/vlachoudis/bCNC/archive/523f1ec75d839de5d599420bb5b751f905324463/bCNC-20221017git523f1ec7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0b50925fe298ddf474c3e8ad1e193a91d3cd3ea55c037446ccc2082ef75f6737 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0b50925fe298ddf474c3e8ad1e193a91d3cd3ea55c037446ccc2082ef75f6737 Requires -------- bCNC (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 config(bCNC) hicolor-icon-theme js-jquery python(abi) python3-numpy-stl python3-opencv python3-utils python3.11dist(numpy) python3.11dist(pillow) python3.11dist(pyserial) Provides -------- bCNC: application() application(bCNC.desktop) bCNC bundled(fastclick) bundled(svgcode) config(bCNC) python3.11dist(bcnc) python3dist(bcnc) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1684603 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, R, Haskell, fonts, PHP, Perl, C/C++, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH $ rpmlint bCNC-0.9.14.52~20221017git523f1ec7-5.fc38.noarch.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 checks: 31, packages: 1 bCNC.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bCNC bCNC.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/bCNC/icons/exclamation.gif /usr/share/bCNC/icons/debug.gif bCNC.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/bCNC/icons/pan.gif /usr/share/bCNC/icons/move.gif bCNC.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/bCNC/icons/pocket.gif /usr/share/bCNC/icons/offset.gif bCNC.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/bCNC/pendant/jquery-2.1.4.min.js /usr/share/javascript/jquery/latest/jquery.min.js 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 20.1 s $ rpmlint bCNC-0.9.14.52~20221017git523f1ec7-5.fc38.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 checks: 31, packages: 1 bCNC.spec:41: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(fastclick) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 9.5 s Comments: a) Fastclick has been archived: https://github.com/ftlabs/fastclick It seems ok to bundle, though packaging it separately would be ideal. Where else is it used in Fedora? Maybe someone may want to maintain it? b) SVGcode seemps to be maintained in the repository https://github.com/vlachoudis/bCNC/tree/master/bCNC/lib There is a related project on Pypi https://github.com/PadLex/SvgToGcode but this is not the one that is used c) The repository has text for MIT and BSD licenses, https://github.com/vlachoudis/bCNC can these be included? d) In the spec file, perhaps also add information that the compat folder includes bytecode, that is why it is removed. e) There is a smoke test https://github.com/vlachoudis/bCNC/tree/master/tests can this be run? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684603 _______________________________________________ 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue