Bug 1945909

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=65035810

Taking this review

Mostly good. Some fixes needed:
- license is LGPLv3+ or GPLv2+, not LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+
- use %py3_shebang_fix rather than fixing the shebangs by hand

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: 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.
     => should be LGPLv3+ or GPLv2+ (not LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+)
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU General Public
     License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General
     Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
     later", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with 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]", "Expat License [generated file]", "GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with
     Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited
     License (with Retention)", "*No copyright* Public domain". 342 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1945909-libkdumpfile/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
     => Use %py3_shebang_fix rather than fixing with sed, see
     https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_multiple_python_runtimes
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: 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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[?]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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:
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3092480 bytes in /usr/share
     => this is mostly the doc subpackage, which... does seem to generate arched docs
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libkdumpfile-0.4.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          libkdumpfile-devel-0.4.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          libkdumpfile-doc-0.4.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          libkdumpfile-python-0.4.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          libkdumpfile-util-0.4.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          libkdumpfile-debuginfo-0.4.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          libkdumpfile-debugsource-0.4.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          libkdumpfile-0.4.0-1.fc35.src.rpm
libkdumpfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) coredump -> core dump, core-dump, cored ump
libkdumpfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kdump -> dump, k dump
libkdumpfile-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libkdumpfile-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libkdumpfile-util.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libkdumpfile-util.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dumpattr
libkdumpfile-util.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary listxendoms
libkdumpfile-util.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary showxlat
libkdumpfile.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) coredump -> core dump, core-dump, cored ump
libkdumpfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kdump -> dump, k dump
8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libkdumpfile-python-debuginfo-0.4.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          libkdumpfile-debuginfo-0.4.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          libkdumpfile-util-debuginfo-0.4.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
libkdumpfile-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libkdumpfile-util.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libkdumpfile-util.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dumpattr
libkdumpfile-util.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary listxendoms
libkdumpfile-util.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary showxlat
libkdumpfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) coredump -> core dump, core-dump, cored ump
libkdumpfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kdump -> dump, k dump
libkdumpfile.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libaddrxlat.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
libkdumpfile-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
libkdumpfile-python: /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/_addrxlat.so
libkdumpfile-python: /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/_kdumpfile.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ptesarik/libkdumpfile/releases/download/v0.4.0/libkdumpfile-0.4.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3dc1668a0ab7c6dfd3442cbe006231c7c6f81407b42ec338044b103d57f3b5e2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3dc1668a0ab7c6dfd3442cbe006231c7c6f81407b42ec338044b103d57f3b5e2


Requires
--------
libkdumpfile (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libaddrxlat.so.1()(64bit)
    libaddrxlat.so.1(LIBADDRXLAT_0)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    liblzo2.so.2()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libsnappy.so.1()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libkdumpfile-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libaddrxlat.so.1()(64bit)
    libkdumpfile(x86-64)
    libkdumpfile.so.8()(64bit)
    pkgconfig(libaddrxlat)
    pkgconfig(snappy)
    pkgconfig(zlib)

libkdumpfile-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libkdumpfile-python (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libaddrxlat.so.1()(64bit)
    libaddrxlat.so.1(LIBADDRXLAT_0)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypt.so.2()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libkdumpfile(x86-64)
    libkdumpfile.so.8()(64bit)
    libkdumpfile.so.8(LIBKDUMPFILE_0)(64bit)
    liblzo2.so.2()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libsnappy.so.1()(64bit)
    libutil.so.1()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libkdumpfile-util (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libaddrxlat.so.1()(64bit)
    libaddrxlat.so.1(LIBADDRXLAT_0)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libkdumpfile(x86-64)
    libkdumpfile.so.8()(64bit)
    libkdumpfile.so.8(LIBKDUMPFILE_0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libkdumpfile-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libkdumpfile-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libkdumpfile:
    libaddrxlat.so.1()(64bit)
    libaddrxlat.so.1(LIBADDRXLAT_0)(64bit)
    libkdumpfile
    libkdumpfile(x86-64)
    libkdumpfile.so.8()(64bit)
    libkdumpfile.so.8(LIBKDUMPFILE_0)(64bit)

libkdumpfile-devel:
    libkdumpfile-devel
    libkdumpfile-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(libaddrxlat)
    pkgconfig(libkdumpfile)

libkdumpfile-doc:
    libkdumpfile-doc
    libkdumpfile-doc(x86-64)

libkdumpfile-python:
    libkdumpfile-python
    libkdumpfile-python(x86-64)

libkdumpfile-util:
    libkdumpfile-util
    libkdumpfile-util(x86-64)

libkdumpfile-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libkdumpfile-debuginfo
    libkdumpfile-debuginfo(x86-64)

libkdumpfile-debugsource:
    libkdumpfile-debugsource
    libkdumpfile-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1945909
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, R, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, Java, Ruby
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libkdumpfile/libkdumpfile.spec
SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/libkdumpfile/libkdumpfile-0.4.0-2.fc35.src.rpm

Changelog:
- Fix license

Tried using %py3_shebang_fix but it doesn't seem to work here

Yeah, I guess the shebang fix macro only fixes actual scripts (not really binaries are they), instead of module files that erroneously have shebangs.

APPROVED

Thanks!

$ fedpkg request-repo libkdumpfile 1945909
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33273

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libkdumpfile

FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a

FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae

FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5dc35d48dd has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5dc35d48dd

FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5dc35d48dd has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5dc35d48dd

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a

FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae

FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5dc35d48dd has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5dc35d48dd

FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5dc35d48dd has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5dc35d48dd

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-505a82b5ae has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-1df61eda3b has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5dc35d48dd has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-c153368d8a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.