Spec URL: https://zfridric.fedorapeople.org/guile-gnutls.spec SRPM URL: https://zfridric.fedorapeople.org/guile-gnutls-3.7.11-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: This package contains Guile bindings for the GnuTLS library. This package is supposed to replace the gnutls-guile subpackage which is part of the fedora gnutls package but will be dropped in the upcoming fedora gnutls release. Fedora Account System Username: zfridric
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5553600 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2172108-guile-gnutls/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05553600-guile-gnutls/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.
Aside from the following issues, the package looks good to me. Notable issues: - Good to use SPDX license identifiers for new package, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Good to have %check, as the upstream comes with some tests written in Guile - Some directories are now owned by this package, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/ 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. [-]: 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU Free Documentation License v1.3 or later", "Public domain", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [generated file]", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ueno/2172108-guile-gnutls/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/guile/site/2.2/gnutls, /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/site-ccache/gnutls, /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/site- ccache [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/site- ccache, /usr/share/guile/site/2.2/gnutls, /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/site- ccache/gnutls [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 [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. [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 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]: 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. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: guile-gnutls-3.7.11-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm guile-gnutls-debuginfo-3.7.11-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm guile-gnutls-debugsource-3.7.11-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm guile-gnutls-3.7.11-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmp22wawr_w')] checks: 31, packages: 4 guile-gnutls.src: W: strange-permission guile-gnutls.spec 600 guile-gnutls.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1 /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/guile-gnutls-v-2.so.0.0.0 gnutls_priority_set_direct 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: guile-gnutls-debuginfo-3.7.11-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpfk_wice1')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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 checks: 31, packages: 3 guile-gnutls.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/guile-gnutls-v-2.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgc.so.1 guile-gnutls.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1 /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/guile-gnutls-v-2.so.0.0.0 gnutls_priority_set_direct 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- guile-gnutls: /usr/lib64/guile/2.2/guile-gnutls-v-2.so Source checksums ---------------- https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-keyring.gpg : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7f9eddb68cf45a79acf9a4d5f463b7c90cbad2736aaa1508b47aa9918f32fec8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f9eddb68cf45a79acf9a4d5f463b7c90cbad2736aaa1508b47aa9918f32fec8 https://ftpmirror.gnu.org/gnutls/guile-gnutls-3.7.11.tar.gz.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4f4ed40bff804dbdda4a98ef7590f197d327c7b5e9da15860d21b5ec5e947379 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4f4ed40bff804dbdda4a98ef7590f197d327c7b5e9da15860d21b5ec5e947379 https://ftpmirror.gnu.org/gnutls/guile-gnutls-3.7.11.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 058eaa5c763e19fbf93e8b4eefc11280f8070535c138c99be11f00cd685613df CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 058eaa5c763e19fbf93e8b4eefc11280f8070535c138c99be11f00cd685613df Requires -------- guile-gnutls (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): guile22 libc.so.6()(64bit) libgc.so.1()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30()(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4)(64bit) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_6_3)(64bit) libguile-2.2.so.1()(64bit) libguile-2.2.so.1(GUILE_2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) guile-gnutls-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): guile-gnutls-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- guile-gnutls: gnutls-guile guile-gnutls guile-gnutls(x86-64) guile-gnutls-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) guile-gnutls-debuginfo guile-gnutls-debuginfo(x86-64) guile-gnutls-debugsource: guile-gnutls-debugsource guile-gnutls-debugsource(x86-64)
Issues have been addressed.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/guile-gnutls
FEDORA-2023-242a1b2900 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-242a1b2900
FEDORA-2023-242a1b2900 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.