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: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'Public Domain'. 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". 157 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/ca- certificates-brazil/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Only use %_sourcedir in very specific situations. Note: %_sourcedir/$RPM_SOURCE_DIR is used. [ ]: 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 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). [ ]: 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 __openssl %{_bindir}/openssl [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ca-certificates-brazil-2023.11.23-1.fc38.noarch.rpm ca-certificates-brazil-2023.11.23-1.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/tmp6r7yao05')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ca-certificates-brazil.spec:38: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR ca-certificates-brazil.noarch: W: no-documentation ca-certificates-brazil.noarch: E: description-line-too-long and the ITI, in addition to playing the role of Root Certifying Authority - Root AC, ca-certificates-brazil.src: E: description-line-too-long and the ITI, in addition to playing the role of Root Certifying Authority - Root AC, 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ca-certificates-brazil". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://letsencrypt.org/certs/lets-encrypt-r4.pem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a8d58df0afc923e1cae72f1d04f4f4e58a7883f42edc6155efa2a7c5d7ef7f25 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a8d58df0afc923e1cae72f1d04f4f4e58a7883f42edc6155efa2a7c5d7ef7f25 https://letsencrypt.org/certs/lets-encrypt-r3.pem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 177e1b8fc43b722b393f4200ff4d92e32deeffbb76fef5ee68d8f49c88cf9d32 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 177e1b8fc43b722b393f4200ff4d92e32deeffbb76fef5ee68d8f49c88cf9d32 https://letsencrypt.org/certs/lets-encrypt-e2.pem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b42688d73bac5099d9cf4fdb7b05f5e54e98c5aa8ab56ee06c297a9a84d2d5f1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b42688d73bac5099d9cf4fdb7b05f5e54e98c5aa8ab56ee06c297a9a84d2d5f1 https://letsencrypt.org/certs/lets-encrypt-e1.pem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a0f7541863bf1c9e816ec22dc602e13993b0a23bddf4213e781187499b6199ff CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a0f7541863bf1c9e816ec22dc602e13993b0a23bddf4213e781187499b6199ff https://letsencrypt.org/certs/isrg-root-x2.pem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a13d881e11fe6df181b53841f9fa738a2d7ca9ae7be3d53c866f722b4242b013 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a13d881e11fe6df181b53841f9fa738a2d7ca9ae7be3d53c866f722b4242b013 http://acraiz.icpbrasil.gov.br/credenciadas/CertificadosAC-ICP-Brasil/hashsha512.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3b7b743c8d0b4c283dd70c300040834916344a01b7cac44c0304d56a5b9bff9d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3b7b743c8d0b4c283dd70c300040834916344a01b7cac44c0304d56a5b9bff9d http://acraiz.icpbrasil.gov.br/credenciadas/CertificadosAC-ICP-Brasil/ACcompactado.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 87c702da0436b9592cb200d00f79ae0df22734d0174719efba6af18f59bf4322 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 87c702da0436b9592cb200d00f79ae0df22734d0174719efba6af18f59bf4322 Requires -------- ca-certificates-brazil (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/update-ca-trust Provides -------- ca-certificates-brazil: ca-certificates-brazil Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name ca-certificates-brazil --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, Perl, R, Python, PHP, Ocaml, C/C++, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH