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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
License, Version 3". 65 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/bookmark-
dlp/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/bookmark-dlp
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/bookmark-dlp
[ ]: %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.
[ ]: 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 10388 bytes in 1 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]: 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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]: 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.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify occurs outside of %prep.
[ ]: 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 __strip /bin/true
[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.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: bookmark-dlp-0.4.1-1.fc41.x86_64.rpm
bookmark-dlp-0.4.1-1.fc41.src.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpvhtl0tx7')]
checks: 32, packages: 2
bookmark-dlp.src: E: spelling-error ('yt', 'Summary(en_US) yt -> YT, yr, y')
bookmark-dlp.src: E: spelling-error ('yt', '%description -l en_US yt -> YT, yr, y')
bookmark-dlp.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('yt', 'Summary(en_US) yt -> YT, yr, y')
bookmark-dlp.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('yt', '%description -l en_US yt -> YT, yr, y')
bookmark-dlp.spec:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
bookmark-dlp.spec:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
bookmark-dlp.spec:12: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
bookmark-dlp.spec:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
bookmark-dlp.spec:30: W: macro-in-comment %{gpgverify}
bookmark-dlp.spec:30: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE2}
bookmark-dlp.spec:30: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE1}
bookmark-dlp.spec:30: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE0}
bookmark-dlp.spec:60: W: macro-in-comment %{_builddir}
bookmark-dlp.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libgcc
bookmark-dlp.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libstdc++
bookmark-dlp.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/bookmark-dlp.desktop bookmark-dlp
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 10 warnings, 8 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 1.8 s
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "bookmark-dlp".
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/Neurofibromin/bookmark-dlp/archive/refs/tags/0.4.1.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 26dcbf8ac77437974b19020884ec38b464b38e0dff6f74931774f137ce2cbcd8
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 26dcbf8ac77437974b19020884ec38b464b38e0dff6f74931774f137ce2cbcd8
Requires
--------
bookmark-dlp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
glibc
ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libgcc
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
libstdc++
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.7)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
yt-dlp
Provides
--------
bookmark-dlp:
application()
application(bookmark-dlp.desktop)
bookmark-dlp
bookmark-dlp(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name bookmark-dlp --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-41-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, R, Python, fonts, Ocaml, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH