Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/license-validate.spec SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/license-validate-1-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Validate whether the license string conforms to Fedora Licensing. Fedora Account System Username: msuchy
Updated Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/license-validate.spec SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/license-validate-2-1.fc35.src.rpm
There is a weird changelog entry at the end * Sun Dec 26 2021 msuchy <msuchy> - If I was nitpicking, I would say there is missing space in the #for test comment and that there is an inconsistent number of blank lines between sections. The fedora-review tool also complains about Issues: ======= - 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 license-validate is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Which I understand as a false-positive, and I think we can ignore it.
Updated Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/license-validate.spec SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/license-validate-3-1.fc35.src.rpm
Thank you for the updates Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 license-validate is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/license- validate/licensecheck.txt [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. [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]: 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 1 files. [x]: 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]: 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: [!]: 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. [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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: license-validate-3-1.fc36.noarch.rpm license-validate-3-1.fc36.src.rpm license-validate.noarch: E: changelog-time-in-future 2022-01-05 license-validate.src: E: changelog-time-in-future 2022-01-05 license-validate.src: W: invalid-url Source0: license-validate-3.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- license-validate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python3dist(lark-parser) Provides -------- license-validate: license-validate Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name license-validate --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, R, PHP, Python, Perl, Java, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/license-validate
FEDORA-2022-c948f3f29b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c948f3f29b
FEDORA-2022-eab93703ff has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eab93703ff
FEDORA-2022-c948f3f29b has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-c948f3f29b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c948f3f29b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-eab93703ff has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-eab93703ff \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eab93703ff See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-eab93703ff has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-c948f3f29b has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.