[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024 Lukáš Zaoral changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2023-08-15 11:18:54 -- 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=2209024 ___ 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
[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smatch -- 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=2209024 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202209024%23c14 ___ 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
[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024 Benson Muite changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #13 from Benson Muite --- For licensing see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Approved as is, but adding a comment to the spec file about request for upstream to add missing license and possibly using a separate non-arched package for the data can be done on import should you choose. IF time allows, would appreciate a review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2218044 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2223901 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502 -- 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=2209024 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202209024%23c13 ___ 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
[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024
--- Comment #12 from Benson Muite ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General
Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* MIT License GNU General
Public License v2.0 or later", "Unknown or generated", "MIT License",
"GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* MIT
License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD
3-Clause License", "Open Software License 1.1". 1367 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/smatch/2209024-smatch/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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 23247 bytes in 3 files.
[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]: 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]: 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 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
= 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
[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6266346 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2209024-smatch/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06266346-smatch/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. -- 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=2209024 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202209024%23c11 ___ 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
[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service --- Created attachment 1983006 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1983006=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5958612 to 6266346 -- 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=2209024 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202209024%23c10 ___ 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
[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024
--- Comment #9 from Lukáš Zaoral ---
Sorry for a very late reply.
b) While there are snapshots, I believe that this approach cannot be combined
with automated scratch builds made by release monitoring.
c) The package still builds without any issues for me on F39 or F40. I'll fix
these warnings later due to time constraint issues.
d) These binaries are patched out, they are *not* being built and they are
*not* packaged. The spec contains the following section:
%files
%doc README Documentation/{arm64-detecting-tagged-addresses,smatch}.txt
%license GPL-2 LICENSE
%{_bindir}/smatch
%{_datadir}/%{name}
Thus, the only packaged binary is smatch:
$ rpm -ql smatch-1.73-1.fc38.aarch64.rpm | grep bin
/usr/bin/smatch
e) Good catch! Removed.
f) Good catch! LICENSE is now being patched to also list the given instance of
the BSD-3-Clause license.
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06266246-smatch/smatch.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06266246-smatch/smatch-1.73-1.fc40.src.rpm
--
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=2209024
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202209024%23c9
___
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
[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024 --- Comment #8 from Benson Muite --- a) Build completed on all architectures: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/smatch/build/5972453/ b) It is possible to download a tarball from repo.or.cz last release is at: https://repo.or.cz/smatch.git/snapshot/2b596bf0d9bc4d0e8dbe3c6d73ef0fbf9a4d1337.tar.gz c) Get warnings during build: Makefile:347: warning: pattern recipe did not update peer target '/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/smatch-1.73-1.fc39.aarch64/usr/share/man/man1/smatch_data see https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/smatch/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/05972453-smatch/builder-live.log.gz Related information: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MAKE44#Upgrade/compatibility_impact https://stackoverflow.com/questions/74449959/makefile-warning-pattern-recipe-did-not-update-peer-target May need to send a patch upstream if it will not be fixed by the next release for Fedora 39/40. d) Perhaps add a comment in the spec file that the regular build produces a number of other files that are installed in the bin directory, cgcc, c2xml, test-inspect, semind, sparsec, sparse-llvm Sparse provides these https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sparse so they are not duplicated. e) smdb.py does not seem to be installed, so its license does not need to be listed. f) Should a copy of the BSD 3 Clause license be distributed? cwchash/hashtable.c contains: * * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. -- 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=2209024 ___ 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
[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024 --- Comment #7 from Benson Muite --- Checked with upstream, cgcc, sparsec, sparsei and sparse-llvm-dis are executable scripts so are ok. -- 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=2209024 ___ 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
[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024 --- Comment #6 from Benson Muite --- Please remove the binaries distributed with the release, everything should be built from source. Ideally, raise an issue upstream to enable production of tarball releases without binaries. -- 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=2209024 ___ 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
[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5958612 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2209024-smatch/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05958612-smatch/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. -- 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=2209024 ___ 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
[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service --- Created attachment 1966892 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1966892=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5941466 to 5958612 -- 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=2209024 ___ 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
[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024 --- Comment #3 from Lukáš Zaoral --- Thanks for the review! a) Yes, but they are components of sparse which smatch bundles but does not use. Therefore, there is no point in building them. b) I've added files that are not part of sparse to the %doc section. c) Done. d) Done. e) Done. f) No, they are only used by components of sparse which smatch does not use. g) Done. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05958468-smatch/smatch.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05958468-smatch/smatch-1.73-1.fc39.src.rpm -- 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=2209024 ___ 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
[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[!]: Package contains no static executables.
[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:
[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: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General
Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* MIT License GNU General
Public License v2.0 or later", "Unknown or generated", "MIT License",
"GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* MIT
License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD
3-Clause License", "Open Software License 1.1". 1367 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/smatch/2209024-smatch/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: 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
[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.
[ ]: 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.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: 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
= 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: 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
[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024 Benson Muite changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? CC||benson_mu...@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|benson_mu...@emailplus.org -- 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=2209024 ___ 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
[Bug 2209024] Review Request: smatch - A static analyzer for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2209024
Fedora Review Service changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://%{name}.sourceforge
||.net
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5941466
(succeeded)
Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2209024-smatch/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05941466-smatch/fedora-review/review.txt
Please take a look if any issues were found.
---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
--
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=2209024
___
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
