Attachment 1761850 Details for Bug 1925322 – fedora-review-output.txt

fedora-review-output.txt

fedora-review-output.txt (text/plain), 8.91 KB, created by ericedens on 2021-03-08 22:08:54 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: ericedens

Created: 2021-03-08 22:08:54 UTC

Size: 8.91 KB

patch

obsolete

>
>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 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
>     upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No
>     copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause
>     "New" or "Revised" License", "zlib/libpng license". 24 files have
>     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>     /tmp/review/1925322-google-guest-agent/licensecheck.txt
>[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
>[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>     Note: No known owner of /etc/default
>[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/default
>[ ]: %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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
>[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
>     one supported primary architecture.
>[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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
>[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]: No %config files under /usr.
>[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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
>     systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
>     Note: Systemd service file(s) in google-guest-agent
>[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
>[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
>
>===== SHOULD items =====
>
>Generic:
>[ ]: 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 is not used.
>[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
>     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
>[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
>[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>     files.
>[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
>[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>[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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>     architectures.
>[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.
>[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
>
>
>Rpmlint
>-------
>Checking: google-guest-agent-20201217.02-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
>          google-guest-agent-debuginfo-20201217.02-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
>          google-guest-agent-debugsource-20201217.02-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
>          google-guest-agent-20201217.02-1.fc35.src.rpm
>google-guest-agent.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit
>google-guest-agent.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_guest_agent
>google-guest-agent.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_metadata_script_runner
>google-guest-agent.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit
>4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
>
>
>
>
>Rpmlint (debuginfo)
>-------------------
>Checking: google-guest-agent-debuginfo-20201217.02-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
>1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
>
>
>
>
>
>Rpmlint (installed packages)
>----------------------------
>google-guest-agent.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit
>google-guest-agent.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_guest_agent
>google-guest-agent.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary google_metadata_script_runner
>3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
>
>
>
>Source checksums
>----------------
>https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/guest-agent/archive/20201217.02/guest-agent-20201217.02.tar.gz :
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7f1fac0a9d8ab0af202950fe6f7b6284c30b093611c7819bfc1e1a87c59390a8
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f1fac0a9d8ab0af202950fe6f7b6284c30b093611c7819bfc1e1a87c59390a8
>
>
>Requires
>--------
>google-guest-agent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    /bin/sh
>    config(google-guest-agent)
>    libc.so.6()(64bit)
>    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
>    systemd
>
>google-guest-agent-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>
>google-guest-agent-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>
>
>
>Provides
>--------
>google-guest-agent:
>    config(google-guest-agent)
>    google-guest-agent
>    google-guest-agent(x86-64)
>
>google-guest-agent-debuginfo:
>    debuginfo(build-id)
>    google-guest-agent-debuginfo
>    google-guest-agent-debuginfo(x86-64)
>
>google-guest-agent-debugsource:
>    google-guest-agent-debugsource
>    google-guest-agent-debugsource(x86-64)
>
>
>
>Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
>Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1925322 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
>Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
>Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
>Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, Java, Haskell, fonts, R, Python, Perl
>Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 1925322: 1761850