Bug 2238725

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

I'm still interested in packaging this software.

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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* The
     Unlicense", "*No copyright* Public domain", "MIT License and/or Public
     domain". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/zpagfranz/2238725-zpaqfranz/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 37329 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]: 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]: 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.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/fcorbelli/zpaqfranz/archive/2826e9a272bf9f2d081d74a341a93b5e6978602e/zpaqfranz-2826e9a.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 667007ca729fc7d49ca2febd3f27f82c0b67593a798643e609d2f057c0d5e72e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 667007ca729fc7d49ca2febd3f27f82c0b67593a798643e609d2f057c0d5e72e


Requires
--------
zpaqfranz (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

zpaqfranz-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

zpaqfranz-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
zpaqfranz:
    bundled(libdivsufsort-lite)
    zpaqfranz
    zpaqfranz(x86-64)

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

zpaqfranz-debugsource:
    zpaqfranz-debugsource
    zpaqfranz-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2238725
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Python, R, Java, SugarActivity, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Seems ok, though issues reported have been fixed. Maybe it is possible to update to a newer release?
b) Builds on all architectures https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=124520024

Thanks for dealing with this review. However, the latest version, 60.6 contains pieces of code from <https://github.com/codewithnick/ascii-art> (e.g. ascii::Ascii::print() method) which uses CC0-1.0 license. That license is not allowed in Fedora for a computer code (only for non-code). Hence Fedora cannot distribute the latest zpaqfranc version and I'm going to withdraw this review.

It seems that upstream is willing to change the license.

I updated the package to the latest 60.8 version.

Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/zpaqfranz/zpaqfranz.spec
SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/zpaqfranz/zpaqfranz-60.8-1.fc42.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8169209
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2238725-zpaqfranz/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08169209-zpaqfranz/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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[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* The
     Unlicense", "*No copyright* Public domain", "MIT License and/or Public
     domain". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/zpaqfranz/2238725-zpaqfranz/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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 41388 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[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]: 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: zpaqfranz-60.8-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          zpaqfranz-debuginfo-60.8-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          zpaqfranz-debugsource-60.8-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          zpaqfranz-60.8-1.fc42.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/tmpjq7g0p6b')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

zpaqfranz.spec:72: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(lz4)
zpaqfranz.src: E: spelling-error ('archiver', 'Summary(en_US) archiver -> archive, archives, archived')
zpaqfranz.src: E: spelling-error ('deduplicated', '%description -l en_US deduplicated -> reduplicated, duplicated, quadruplicated')
zpaqfranz.src: E: spelling-error ('Multithread', '%description -l en_US Multithread -> Multi thread, Multi-thread, Multilayered')
zpaqfranz.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('archiver', 'Summary(en_US) archiver -> archive, archives, archived')
zpaqfranz.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('deduplicated', '%description -l en_US deduplicated -> reduplicated, duplicated, quadruplicated')
zpaqfranz.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Multithread', '%description -l en_US Multithread -> Multi thread, Multi-thread, Multilayered')
zpaqfranz.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/zpaqfranz
========= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 2 warnings, 19 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 5.5 s =========




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: zpaqfranz-debuginfo-60.8-1.fc42.x86_64.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/tmpyy_509ky')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 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

zpaqfranz.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('archiver', 'Summary(en_US) archiver -> archive, archives, archived')
zpaqfranz.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('deduplicated', '%description -l en_US deduplicated -> reduplicated, duplicated, quadruplicated')
zpaqfranz.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Multithread', '%description -l en_US Multithread -> Multi thread, Multi-thread, Multilayered')
zpaqfranz.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/zpaqfranz
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 14 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 2.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/fcorbelli/zpaqfranz/archive/refs/tags/60.8.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c512814e2861cbd44464afb8a7b73c174eff809e93caf6e255a9d9baca3a3483
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c512814e2861cbd44464afb8a7b73c174eff809e93caf6e255a9d9baca3a3483


Requires
--------
zpaqfranz (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

zpaqfranz-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

zpaqfranz-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
zpaqfranz:
    bundled(libdivsufsort-lite)
    bundled(lz4)
    zpaqfranz
    zpaqfranz(x86-64)

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

zpaqfranz-debugsource:
    zpaqfranz-debugsource
    zpaqfranz-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2238725
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, Java, Perl, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


Comments:
a) Koji build
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125158178
b) Change
Source0:        %{url}/archive/refs/tags/%{version}.tar.gz
to
Source:         %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
See 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
Source no longer need to be numbered.
c) Approved. Above change can be made on import.

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

Thanks for the review. I corrected the Source URL.