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: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/mod_multipart/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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: [ ]: 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "FSF All Permissive License", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/mod_multipart/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 3 files. [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: 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 mod_multipart-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mod_multipart-2.4.0-1.fc39.i686.rpm mod_multipart-devel-2.4.0-1.fc39.i686.rpm mod_multipart-debuginfo-2.4.0-1.fc39.i686.rpm mod_multipart-debugsource-2.4.0-1.fc39.i686.rpm mod_multipart-2.4.0-1.fc39.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/tmpqqbpco8g')] checks: 31, packages: 5 mod_multipart-devel.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/mod_multipart-devel/AUTHORS mod_multipart-devel.i686: W: summary-ended-with-dot Development tools for the mod_multipart filters. mod_multipart.i686: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: mod_multipart-debuginfo-2.4.0-1.fc39.i686.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/tmpuh8j2w6r')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 4 mod_multipart-devel.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/mod_multipart-devel/AUTHORS mod_multipart.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_multipart.so /lib/libexpat.so.1 mod_multipart.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_multipart.so /lib/libcrypt.so.2 mod_multipart.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_multipart.so /lib/libldap.so.2 mod_multipart.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_multipart.so /lib/liblber.so.2 mod_multipart.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_multipart.so ap_get_brigade (/usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_multipart.so) mod_multipart.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_multipart.so ap_register_input_filter (/usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_multipart.so) mod_multipart.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_multipart.so ap_remove_input_filter (/usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_multipart.so) mod_multipart.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_multipart.so ap_is_initial_req (/usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_multipart.so) mod_multipart.i686: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_multipart.so ap_log_rerror_ (/usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_multipart.so) mod_multipart-devel.i686: W: summary-ended-with-dot Development tools for the mod_multipart filters. mod_multipart.i686: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- mod_multipart: /usr/lib/httpd/modules/mod_multipart.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/minfrin/mod_multipart/releases/download/mod_multipart-2.4.0/mod_multipart-2.4.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1cf2354d295f8b6ab276693b32f2df15636ae7da5252c27a731fd1f6f0a55fc0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 84dd00caf0f0e67971a83bb86c6568fd77636173091665c3cfdd577349ce3ced diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- mod_multipart (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (httpd or apache or apache2) glibc libapr-1.so.0 libaprutil-1.so.0 libc.so.6 libcrypt.so.2 libexpat.so.1 liblber.so.2 libldap.so.2 rtld(GNU_HASH) mod_multipart-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (httpd-devel or apache-devel or apache2-devel) mod_multipart-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mod_multipart-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mod_multipart: mod_multipart mod_multipart(x86-32) mod_multipart-devel: mod_multipart-devel mod_multipart-devel(x86-32) mod_multipart-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) mod_multipart-debuginfo mod_multipart-debuginfo(x86-32) mod_multipart-debugsource: mod_multipart-debugsource mod_multipart-debugsource(x86-32) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name mod_multipart --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i686 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, Perl, fonts, Haskell, Python, PHP, SugarActivity, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH