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 'GPLv3'. 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later and/or Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer - sell variant and/or MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "ISC License", "*No copyright* ISC License", "CNRI Python Open Source GPL Compatible License Agreement and/or GNU General Public License and/or Python License 2.0 and/or Python Software Foundation License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* Python License 2.0", "MIT License [generated file]", "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0", "ISC License and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2 and/or MIT License", "BSD 2-clause FreeBSD License", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 3-Clause License and/or MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause Clear License", "BSD 0-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 0-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License and/or MIT No Attribution", "MIT No Attribution", "Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License [generated file]". 29582 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/lxd-ui/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: 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 [ ]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 8750 bytes in 2 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. [ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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: lxd-ui-0.8.3-0.1.fc42.noarch.rpm lxd-ui-0.8.3-0.1.fc42.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/tmprb7eizoa')] checks: 32, packages: 2 lxd-ui.noarch: E: spelling-error ('frontend', '%description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end') lxd-ui.src: E: spelling-error ('frontend', '%description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end') lxd-ui.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: lxd-ui-vendor-0.8.3-1.tar.xz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 2.0 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "lxd-ui". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 checks: 32, packages: 1 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/canonical/lxd-ui/archive/0.8.3/lxd-ui-0.8.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d1d9e4c0500b7080375d4965e6fb92fb74ecabe854cf3b1a1807b506932add46 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d1d9e4c0500b7080375d4965e6fb92fb74ecabe854cf3b1a1807b506932add46 Requires -------- lxd-ui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lxd Provides -------- lxd-ui: lxd-ui Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name lxd-ui --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-s390x Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, C/C++, R, Perl, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH