Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/licensecheck.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/licensecheck-3.0.1-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: Simple license checker for source files Fedora Account System Username: smani
how is this different than existing $ rpm -qf /usr/bin/licensecheck devscripts-minimal-2.16.5-1.fc24.x86_64
You beat me, I'm writing a fedora-devel post right now to explain that devscripts-2.16.6 removed licensecheck and it lives in this package now. Details on -devel shortly.
have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1346382 ?
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - 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. Note: License file licensecheck is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== MUST items ===== 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: "LGPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "Artistic (v2.0)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LLGPL", "LGPL (v2.1)", "ISC", "GPL (v1 or later)", "Public domain", "CDDL", "GPL (v3 or later)", "AFL-3.0", "BSL", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Beerware", "BSD", "BSD (2 clause)", "EPL-1.0", "GPL (v3)", "Artistic (v1.0)", "Apache (v2.0)", "FreeType", "GPL (v2 or later)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "MPL (v1.1)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Public domain GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2)", "LGPL (v2 or v3)", "GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "MPL (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or v3)". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1352667-licensecheck/licensecheck.txt These source files are without license headers: App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/bin/licensecheck App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/lib/App/Licensecheck.pm Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s, and ask to add license headers https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/bash- completion(kmod, dnf, cmake, rpmdevtools, python-pip, mercurial, bash- completion, subversion, rpmlint, yum, python3-pip, fedpkg, source- highlight, glib2, git-core), /usr/share/bash- completion/completions(kmod, dnf, cmake, rpmdevtools, python-pip, mercurial, firewalld, libappstream-glib, subversion, rpmlint, yum, bash-completion, python3-pip, fedpkg, source-highlight, glib2, git- core), /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/App(perl-Test-Harness, perl-CPAN) [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 [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: 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]: 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 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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 Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. [x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned. ===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.18 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata Mock Version: 1.2.18 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.18 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/gil/1352667-licensecheck/results/licensecheck-3.0.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/ --releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/gil/1352667-licensecheck/results/licensecheck-3.0.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: licensecheck-3.0.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm licensecheck-3.0.1-1.fc25.src.rpm licensecheck.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/licensecheck 555 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- licensecheck (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0) perl(:VERSION) perl(App::Licensecheck) perl(Encode) perl(Fcntl) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(Moo) perl(Path::Tiny) perl(Pod::Constants) perl(Pod::Usage) perl(String::Escape) perl(Try::Tiny) perl(Type::Utils) perl(Types::Common::Numeric) perl(Types::Standard) perl(autodie) perl(charnames) perl(namespace::clean) perl(strictures) perl(utf8) perl(version) perl(warnings) Provides -------- licensecheck: licensecheck perl(App::Licensecheck) Source checksums ---------------- https://cpan.metacpan.org/authors/id/J/JO/JONASS/App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7e2326d577f0dd7d062736e7fe426780d49827bea49a65ab1854f5ad8f3a9749 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7e2326d577f0dd7d062736e7fe426780d49827bea49a65ab1854f5ad8f3a9749 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1352667 --plugins Perl -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -L ~/1352666-perl-Pod-Constants/dependencies/perl-Pod-Constants-0.18-1.fc25.noarch.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Built with local dependencies:
Issues (non blocking): [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "Artistic (v2.0)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LLGPL", "LGPL (v2.1)", "ISC", "GPL (v1 or later)", "Public domain", "CDDL", "GPL (v3 or later)", "AFL-3.0", "BSL", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Beerware", "BSD", "BSD (2 clause)", "EPL-1.0", "GPL (v3)", "Artistic (v1.0)", "Apache (v2.0)", "FreeType", "GPL (v2 or later)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "MPL (v1.1)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Public domain GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2)", "LGPL (v2 or v3)", "GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "MPL (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or v3)". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1352667-licensecheck/licensecheck.txt These source files are without license headers: App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/bin/licensecheck App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/lib/App/Licensecheck.pm Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s, and ask to add license headers https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions licensecheck.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/licensecheck 555
maybe you should add also App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/COPYRIGHT to %license macro
COPYRIGHT refers to the files as they are located in the source tarball and I don't think it makes sense to ship with the installed package. I've raised the point about adding license headers to bin/licensecheck and lib/App/Licensecheck.pm upstream: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=829667.
Thanks, approved if want take my bug quoted in the Comment#3 i would be grateful
Thanks. I'll look at #1346382.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/licensecheck