Bug 2217146

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6969467
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2217146-boxfort/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06969467-boxfort/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

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

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



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

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/fedora/2217146-boxfort/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: 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.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 2238 bytes in 2 files.
[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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in boxfort-
     devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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:
[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: boxfort-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm
          boxfort-devel-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm
          boxfort-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm
          boxfort-debugsource-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm
          boxfort-0.1.4-1.fc40.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/tmp8cjbb6nx')]
checks: 32, packages: 5

boxfort.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.src: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.src: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: boxfort-build-shared-lib.patch
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 30 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.8 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: boxfort-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.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/tmprjizzxyj')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ 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
checks: 32, packages: 4

boxfort.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.1.4 main       (/usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.1.4)
boxfort.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 26 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Snaipe/BoxFort/archive/v0.1.4/BoxFort-0.1.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 67129d585722739e78af766a9ce5fb91f1359740e3b12a2ac0c2f8d7049be66b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 67129d585722739e78af766a9ce5fb91f1359740e3b12a2ac0c2f8d7049be66b


Requires
--------
boxfort (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

boxfort-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    boxfort
    libboxfort.so.0.1()(64bit)

boxfort-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

boxfort-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
boxfort:
    boxfort
    boxfort(aarch-64)
    libboxfort.so.0.1()(64bit)

boxfort-devel:
    boxfort-devel
    boxfort-devel(aarch-64)
    pkgconfig(boxfort)

boxfort-debuginfo:
    boxfort-debuginfo
    boxfort-debuginfo(aarch-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libboxfort.so.0.1.4-0.1.4-1.fc40.aarch64.debug()(64bit)

boxfort-debugsource:
    boxfort-debugsource
    boxfort-debugsource(aarch-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2217146
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, Python, Java, R, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) README.md is not needed in the devel package, it is in the main package which the devel package requires
b) Please remove the extra %license in the file listing for the devel package, main package has license and
devel package requires main package.
c) For the devel package please use:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
instead of
Requires:       %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
d) There is a warning
boxfort.aarch64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.1.4 main       (/usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.1.4)
Running
$ ld libboxfort.so.0.1.4 
ld: warning: cannot find entry symbol _start; not setting start address
ld: libboxfort.so.0.1.4: undefined reference to `main'

Maybe this is something to report upstream?

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/test-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07400727-boxfort/boxfort.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/test-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07400727-boxfort/boxfort-0.1.4-1.20240503git1018a44.fc41.src.rpm

The comments of a-c) has been resolved.
The comment d), it seems this rpmlint issue now. https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/topazus/test-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07400727-boxfort/fedora-review/review.txt

Created attachment 2030991 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6969467 to 7400776

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7400776
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2217146-boxfort/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07400776-boxfort/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2217146-boxfort/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07400776-boxfort/boxfort.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2217146-boxfort/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07400776-boxfort/boxfort-0.1.4-1.20240503git1018a44.fc41.src.rpm

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8480472
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2217146-boxfort/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08480472-boxfort/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

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]: 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]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /FedoraPackaging/reviews/boxfort/2217146-boxfort/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[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.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 1119 bytes in 1 files.
[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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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:
[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: boxfort-0.1.4-1.20240503git1018a44.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          boxfort-devel-0.1.4-1.20240503git1018a44.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          boxfort-0.1.4-1.20240503git1018a44.fc42.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/tmpgqf0l829')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

boxfort.src: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.src: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 21 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.4 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: boxfort-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.20240503git1018a44.fc42.x86_64.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/tmph03qgzox')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ 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: 3

boxfort.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.0.1 main        (/usr/lib64/libboxfort.so.0.0.1)
boxfort.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 23 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 1.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Snaipe/BoxFort/archive/1018a44e63b57e9ffc3b8b68b6c8a8aa8f342d2a/BoxFort-1018a44e63b57e9ffc3b8b68b6c8a8aa8f342d2a.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0044cebdfb77fb1dc7c6984c8dec195f93a4361aef3340960646bdabcbe67aec
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0044cebdfb77fb1dc7c6984c8dec195f93a4361aef3340960646bdabcbe67aec


Requires
--------
boxfort (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

boxfort-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    boxfort(x86-64)
    libboxfort.so.0()(64bit)



Provides
--------
boxfort:
    boxfort
    boxfort(x86-64)
    libboxfort.so.0()(64bit)

boxfort-devel:
    boxfort-devel
    boxfort-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(boxfort)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2217146
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, Java, PHP, Perl, Python, Haskell, R, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Koji build
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=127645718
b) Approved.

Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxfort.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxfort-0.1.4-1.fc39.src.rpm

[fedora-review-service-build]

Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxfort.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/boxfort-0.1.5-1.fc44.src.rpm

Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/boxfort.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/boxfort-0.1.5-1.fc44.src.rpm

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

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



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

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/boxfort/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.
[ ]: 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 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 1119 bytes in 1 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: 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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: boxfort-0.1.5-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
          boxfort-devel-0.1.5-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
          boxfort-0.1.5-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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/tmpz15cgg89')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

boxfort.src: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.src: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', 'Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('sandboxing', '%description -l en_US sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging')
boxfort-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 21 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.2 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: boxfort-debuginfo-0.1.5-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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/tmpbj8hg72x')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "boxfort".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "boxfort-debuginfo".
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 3

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "boxfort-devel".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Snaipe/BoxFort/archive/v0.1.5/BoxFort-0.1.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 47fde5ce6fbbd7166268e97edc0fc22ed2bf0bf4d93b81ee30d664a8c35a155c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 47fde5ce6fbbd7166268e97edc0fc22ed2bf0bf4d93b81ee30d664a8c35a155c


Requires
--------
boxfort (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

boxfort-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    boxfort(x86-64)
    libboxfort.so.0()(64bit)



Provides
--------
boxfort:
    boxfort
    boxfort(x86-64)
    libboxfort.so.0()(64bit)

boxfort-devel:
    boxfort-devel
    boxfort-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(boxfort)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name boxfort --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, PHP, Python, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, R, Perl, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

[x] package name is OK
[x] license is acceptable for Fedora
[x] builds and installs OK
[x] BR/P/R look correct
[x] There are no big rpmlint issues
[x] The package runs tests in %check

Approved.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/boxfort

There seems to be some problem with the following file.
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxfort-0.1.4-1.fc39.src.rpm
Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error.
Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

There seems to be some problem with the following file.
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/boxfort-0.1.4-1.fc39.src.rpm
Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error.
Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.