Bug 2335715

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8473154
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335715-uuu/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08473154-uuu/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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright*
     BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GNU Lesser
     General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser
     General Public License, Version 2.1", "Apache License 2.0", "*No
     copyright* zlib License", "zlib License", "GNU General Public License,
     Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later", "MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause
     License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete
     FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License",
     "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "Boost Software License
     1.0", "NTP License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU
     General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "BSD 2-Clause
     License and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2". 1122 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /FedoraPackaging/reviews/uuu/2335715-uuu/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev,
     /usr/lib/udev/rules.d
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: 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.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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 0 bytes in 0 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.
[ ]: %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]: 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: uuu-1.5.182-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          uuu-1.5.182-1.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/tmpilb1wnh5')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

uuu.src: E: spelling-error ('Freescale', 'Summary(en_US) Freescale -> Free scale, Free-scale, Alfresco')
uuu.src: E: spelling-error ('Freescale', '%description -l en_US Freescale -> Free scale, Free-scale, Alfresco')
uuu.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Freescale', 'Summary(en_US) Freescale -> Free scale, Free-scale, Alfresco')
uuu.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Freescale', '%description -l en_US Freescale -> Free scale, Free-scale, Alfresco')
uuu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uuu
uuu.x86_64: W: no-documentation
uuu.x86_64: W: empty-%post
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.4 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: uuu-debuginfo-1.5.182-1.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/tmp_r65t_m7')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 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: 2

uuu.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Freescale', 'Summary(en_US) Freescale -> Free scale, Free-scale, Alfresco')
uuu.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Freescale', '%description -l en_US Freescale -> Free scale, Free-scale, Alfresco')
uuu.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uuu
uuu.x86_64: W: no-documentation
uuu.x86_64: W: empty-%post
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 9 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.6 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/nxp-imx/mfgtools/releases/download/uuu_1.5.182/uuu_source-uuu_1.5.182.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 723d3da358e6af974a056e3adbcb105fac9dad4b87544de0d22b8c974a8037aa
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 723d3da358e6af974a056e3adbcb105fac9dad4b87544de0d22b8c974a8037aa


Requires
--------
uuu (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    libbz2.so.1()(64bit)
    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)
    libssl.so.3()(64bit)
    libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libtinyxml2.so.10()(64bit)
    libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    libzstd.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
uuu:
    uuu
    uuu(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2335715
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Ocaml, fonts, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=128234731
Please add missing header file to ensure it builds.
b) One file seems to be under Apache 2.0:
Apache License 2.0
------------------
uuu-1.5.182-build/uuu-uuu_1.5.182/libuuu/sparse_format.h
c) Can bundled external  libraries be removed in the prep stage to ensure they are not used in the build?
d) Can documentation be generated using doxygen, ideally as man pages?
e) May want to package latest tagged pre-release, though  current release is also ok.
f) Please package the license file and the README
g) Using a less generic name would be helpful.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

Happy to finish the review.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.