https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2513599
Jerry James <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Jerry James <[email protected]> --- I noted a few issues, but none of them are serious enough to delay this review further. This package is APPROVED. Please address the issues below when you import the package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - I guess the epoch is set to match grub2? I ask because ordinarily a new package would not need to set an epoch. If so, a comment in the spec file to that effect would be good, so future maintainers know they need to keep the two Epoch fields in sync. - And I suppose the License is also set to match grub2? None of the files in this package actually name a license. Here again, a comment in the spec file would be good so future maintainers know they need to keep the two License fields in sync. - The %changelog versions are missing the Epoch, leading to the incoherent-version-in-changelog warnings from rpmlint below. The entries should list 1:1-1 and 1:1-2 as the versions. (And, really, "Sigh." is not a terribly helpful changelog entry. Might as well omit it, from my POV.) - To prevent these rpmlint warnings: grub2-confidential-computing.spec:43: W: macro-in-comment %install grub2-confidential-computing.spec:43: W: macro-in-comment %files double the % signs in the comment on line 43: ... %%install & %%files ... ===== 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2513599-grub2-confidential- computing/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/efi(systemd-boot- ia32, systemd-boot-x64, systemd-boot-aa64) Given the nature of these packages, this is not an issue. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. Except changelog entries are missing the Epoch. See above. [x]: 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 [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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: [-]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [!]: %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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: 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: grub2-confidential-computing-1-2.fc46.x86_64.rpm grub2-confidential-computing-1-2.fc46.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpqb1con_h')] checks: 32, packages: 2 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI/fedora/grubx64.efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI/fedora 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI/fedora/grubx64.efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: no-documentation grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: no-binary grub2-confidential-computing.spec: W: no-%check-section grub2-confidential-computing.spec:43: W: macro-in-comment %install grub2-confidential-computing.spec:43: W: macro-in-comment %files grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1-2 ['1:1-2.fc46', '1:1-2'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 6 warnings, 8 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.10.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 33, packages: 1 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI/fedora/grubx64.efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI/fedora 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/lib/efi/grub2-confidential-computing/1:1-2.fc46/EFI/fedora/grubx64.efi 700 grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: no-documentation grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: E: no-binary grub2-confidential-computing.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1-2 ['1:1-2.fc46', '1:1-2'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 3 warnings, 3 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.0 s Requires -------- grub2-confidential-computing (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- grub2-confidential-computing: grub2-confidential-computing grub2-confidential-computing(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2513599 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Ruby, Haskell, Java, Perl, Python, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2513599 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202513599%23c8 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
