Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-infer-license/ghc-infer-license.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-infer-license/ghc-infer-license-0.2.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Infer software license from a given license file.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55505851 This is needed by hpack and hence stack.
Package approved. 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]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "[generated file]", "GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License [generated file]", "ISC License". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-infer-license/review- ghc-infer-license/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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. [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]: 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 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 ------- ghc-infer-license.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libHSinfer-license-0.2.0-LJJ0HtjUKqlK0UEyR1aE10-ghc8.8.4.so ghc-infer-license.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-infer-license-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Thank you for the review, Robert-André https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/31836
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-infer-license