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: ======= - 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. Note: Unversionned Python dependency found. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Python/#_dependencies - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2+'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 ===== MUST items ===== 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "BSD 2-Clause License". 76 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/insights- client/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /var/log, /usr/lib, /usr/share/man, /usr/share/doc, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /var/cache, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/share/man/man5, /usr/bin, /etc, /etc/logrotate.d, /usr/lib/systemd/system-preset, /usr/lib/systemd, /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d, /etc/insights-client, /var/lib, /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr, /usr/share, /usr/share/man/man8, /var [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /var/log, /usr/lib, /usr/share/man, /usr/share/doc, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /var/cache, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/share/man/man5, /usr/bin, /etc, /etc/logrotate.d, /usr/lib/systemd/system-preset, /usr/lib/systemd, /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d, /etc/insights-client, /var/lib, /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr, /usr/share, /usr/share/man/man8, /var [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: 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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in insights-client [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 2814 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [ ]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Vendor: Red Hat, Inc. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_tags_and_sections [ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [ ]: 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in insights-client-ros [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define _binaries_in_noarch_packages_terminate_build 0 [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: insights-client-3.2.4-1.fc41.noarch.rpm insights-client-ros-3.2.4-1.fc41.noarch.rpm insights-client-3.2.4-1.fc41.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpfxfs8mu0')] checks: 32, packages: 3 insights-client.spec: E: superfluous-%clean-section insights-client-ros.noarch: E: spelling-error ('subpackage', "Summary(en_US) subpackage -> sub package, sub-package, package's") insights-client-ros.noarch: E: spelling-error ('subpackage', "%description -l en_US subpackage -> sub package, sub-package, package's") insights-client-ros.noarch: E: spelling-error ('conf', '%description -l en_US conf -> con, cone, cons') insights-client.noarch: W: post-without-tmpfile-creation /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/insights-client.conf insights-client.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/insights 750 insights-client.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/insights-client 700 insights-client.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/insights 750 insights-client.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/insights-client 700 insights-client.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/insights-client/.exp.sed insights-client.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/insights-client/.fallback.json insights-client.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/insights-client/.fallback.json.asc insights-client.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/insights-client/cert-api.access.redhat.com.pem insights-client.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/insights-client/insights-client.motd insights-client.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/insights-client/redhattools.pub.gpg insights-client.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/insights-client/rpm.egg insights-client.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/insights-client/rpm.egg.asc insights-client.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/logrotate.d/insights-client insights-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary redhat-access-insights insights-client-ros.noarch: W: no-documentation insights-client.noarch: E: missing-dependency-to-logrotate for logrotate script /etc/logrotate.d/insights-client insights-client.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.2.4-1 ['0:3.2.4-1.fc41', '0:3.2.4-1'] insights-client.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /etc/insights-client/.exp.sed insights-client.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /etc/insights-client/.fallback.json insights-client.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /etc/insights-client/.fallback.json.asc insights-client-ros.noarch: E: description-line-too-long The ros subpackage add ros_collect configuration parameter to insights-client.conf file, insights-client-ros.noarch: E: description-line-too-long the parameter is set to True by default. The system starts sending PCP archives to insights-client.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun rm insights-client.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post ln insights-client-ros.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 19 warnings, 7 filtered, 11 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "insights-client". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "insights-client-ros". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 2 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/RedHatInsights/insights-client/releases/download/v3.2.4/insights-client-3.2.4.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ff7e42386d2b36ea7d7b0b5456d69636321c77525b6ee2bc87b92d9174ce7973 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ff7e42386d2b36ea7d7b0b5456d69636321c77525b6ee2bc87b92d9174ce7973 Requires -------- insights-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ((selinux-policy >= 38.1.21-1) if selinux-policy) /bin/sh /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/sh config(insights-client) coreutils gpg pciutils policycoreutils-python-utils python(abi) python3-PyYAML python3-magic python3-requests python3-six python3dist(setuptools) subscription-manager systemd tar insights-client-ros (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh insights-client pcp-zeroconf Provides -------- insights-client: config(insights-client) insights-client insights-client-ros: insights-client-ros Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name insights-client --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, C/C++, Java, R, fonts, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH