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 ===== 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU Free Documentation License v1.3", "LaTeX Project Public License 1.3c", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "LaTeX Project Public License 1.1", "LaTeX Project Public License 1.2", "LaTeX Project Public License 1", "SIL Open Font License 1.1". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/texlive-collection-fontutils/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [ ]: 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 [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: 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 texlive- dvipsconfig [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [ ]: 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. [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: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: texlive-collection-fontutils-svn61207-3.fc44.noarch.rpm texlive-dvipsconfig-svn13293-3.fc44.noarch.rpm texlive-collection-fontutils-svn61207-3.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpd64ex3ad')] checks: 32, packages: 3 texlive-collection-fontutils.noarch: E: spelling-error ('gf', '%description -l en_US gf -> ff, hf, g') texlive-collection-fontutils.noarch: E: spelling-error ('mft', '%description -l en_US mft -> mfr, mt, ft') texlive-collection-fontutils.noarch: E: spelling-error ('fontinst', '%description -l en_US fontinst -> font inst, font-inst, unstinting') texlive-collection-fontutils.src: E: spelling-error ('gf', '%description -l en_US gf -> ff, hf, g') texlive-collection-fontutils.src: E: spelling-error ('mft', '%description -l en_US mft -> mfr, mt, ft') texlive-collection-fontutils.src: E: spelling-error ('fontinst', '%description -l en_US fontinst -> font inst, font-inst, unstinting') texlive-dvipsconfig.noarch: E: spelling-error ('usletter', '%description -l en_US usletter -> us letter, us-letter, letterer') texlive-dvipsconfig.noarch: E: spelling-error ('invers', '%description -l en_US invers -> inverse, inverts, invert') texlive-dvipsconfig.noarch: E: spelling-error ('tektronix', '%description -l en_US tektronix -> tektite') texlive-dvipsconfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/dvips/dvipsconfig/addpsctrl 644 /bin/bash texlive-collection-fontutils.noarch: W: no-documentation texlive-dvipsconfig.noarch: W: no-documentation texlive-collection-fontutils.spec: W: no-%check-section texlive-collection-fontutils.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: texlive-licenses.tar.xz texlive-dvipsconfig.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/texlive-dvipsconfig/gpl2.txt 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 4 warnings, 10 filtered, 11 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "texlive-dvipsconfig". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "texlive-collection-fontutils". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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 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://ctan.math.illinois.edu/systems/texlive/tlnet/archive/dvipsconfig.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 58110245e22b9acf0de3743acdc2f2198e59a7c0fcd8469514cc3b1e649d7168 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58110245e22b9acf0de3743acdc2f2198e59a7c0fcd8469514cc3b1e649d7168 https://ctan.math.illinois.edu/systems/texlive/tlnet/archive/collection-fontutils.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 09aa821181ce68c6a8380fede39029e12c9b6df58976eccca6cdf0f567eb7354 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 09aa821181ce68c6a8380fede39029e12c9b6df58976eccca6cdf0f567eb7354 Requires -------- texlive-collection-fontutils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): psutils t1utils texlive-accfonts texlive-afm2pl texlive-albatross texlive-base texlive-collection-basic texlive-dosepsbin texlive-dvipsconfig texlive-epstopdf texlive-fontinst texlive-fontools texlive-fontware texlive-lcdftypetools texlive-luafindfont texlive-mf2pt1 texlive-ps2eps texlive-ps2pk texlive-ttfutils texlive-dvipsconfig (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): texlive-base texlive-kpathsea Provides -------- texlive-collection-fontutils: texlive-collection-fontutils texlive-dvipsconfig: texlive-dvipsconfig Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name texlive-collection-fontutils --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, fonts, Java, PHP, Python, C/C++, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH