Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05941435-smatch/smatch.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05941435-smatch/smatch-1.73-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Smatch is a static analysis tool for C. Fedora Account System Username: lzaoral
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5941466 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2209024-smatch/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05941466-smatch/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++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* MIT License GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Open Software License 1.1". 1367 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/smatch/2209024-smatch/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: 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. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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 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: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1546240 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: smatch-1.73-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm smatch-debuginfo-1.73-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm smatch-debugsource-1.73-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm smatch-1.73-1.fc39.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/tmpfcqijos9')] checks: 31, packages: 4 smatch.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/smatch/smatch_data/kernel.allocation_funcs.remove smatch.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/smatch/smatch_data/smatch_generic.common_functions smatch.spec:25: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(cwchash) smatch.spec:26: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(sparse) smatch.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smatch =============== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 5.4 s =============== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: smatch-debuginfo-1.73-1.fc39.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/tmp61jti4us')] checks: 31, packages: 1 =============== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.7 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 smatch.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/smatch/smatch_data/kernel.allocation_funcs.remove smatch.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/smatch/smatch_data/smatch_generic.common_functions smatch.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smatch 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 9.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/error27/smatch/archive/refs/tags/1.73.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a11273552c49cea0d87e595015c8643257960f068a0d8be28226b84d99dac10c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a11273552c49cea0d87e595015c8643257960f068a0d8be28226b84d99dac10c Requires -------- smatch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) smatch-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): smatch-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- smatch: bundled(cwchash) bundled(sparse) smatch smatch(x86-64) smatch-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) smatch-debuginfo smatch-debuginfo(x86-64) smatch-debugsource: smatch-debugsource smatch-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2209024 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, R, Haskell, PHP, Java, Ruby, Python, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) Source package seems to have executables for cgcc, sparsec, sparsei and sparse-llvm-dis b) Documentation seems to be available: https://github.com/error27/smatch/tree/master/Documentation Maybe this can be packaged? c) For source0 perhaps use the format: https://github.com/OWNER/PROJECT/archive/%{gittag}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags d) Might also want to list https://repo.or.cz/w/smatch.git as a comment in addition to GitHub e) Is it possible to add some smoke tests of the executables? f) Should libxml and GTK be added as build dependencies? g) Can data files be copied so they preserve timestamps?
Thanks for the review! a) Yes, but they are components of sparse which smatch bundles but does not use. Therefore, there is no point in building them. b) I've added files that are not part of sparse to the %doc section. c) Done. d) Done. e) Done. f) No, they are only used by components of sparse which smatch does not use. g) Done. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05958468-smatch/smatch.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05958468-smatch/smatch-1.73-1.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 1966892 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5941466 to 5958612
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5958612 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2209024-smatch/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05958612-smatch/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.
Please remove the binaries distributed with the release, everything should be built from source. Ideally, raise an issue upstream to enable production of tarball releases without binaries.
Checked with upstream, cgcc, sparsec, sparsei and sparse-llvm-dis are executable scripts so are ok.
a) Build completed on all architectures: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/smatch/build/5972453/ b) It is possible to download a tarball from repo.or.cz last release is at: https://repo.or.cz/smatch.git/snapshot/2b596bf0d9bc4d0e8dbe3c6d73ef0fbf9a4d1337.tar.gz c) Get warnings during build: Makefile:347: warning: pattern recipe did not update peer target '/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/smatch-1.73-1.fc39.aarch64/usr/share/man/man1/smatch_data see https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/smatch/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/05972453-smatch/builder-live.log.gz Related information: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MAKE44#Upgrade/compatibility_impact https://stackoverflow.com/questions/74449959/makefile-warning-pattern-recipe-did-not-update-peer-target May need to send a patch upstream if it will not be fixed by the next release for Fedora 39/40. d) Perhaps add a comment in the spec file that the regular build produces a number of other files that are installed in the bin directory, cgcc, c2xml, test-inspect, semind, sparsec, sparse-llvm Sparse provides these https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sparse so they are not duplicated. e) smdb.py does not seem to be installed, so its license does not need to be listed. f) Should a copy of the BSD 3 Clause license be distributed? cwchash/hashtable.c contains: * * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Sorry for a very late reply. b) While there are snapshots, I believe that this approach cannot be combined with automated scratch builds made by release monitoring. c) The package still builds without any issues for me on F39 or F40. I'll fix these warnings later due to time constraint issues. d) These binaries are patched out, they are *not* being built and they are *not* packaged. The spec contains the following section: %files %doc README Documentation/{arm64-detecting-tagged-addresses,smatch}.txt %license GPL-2 LICENSE %{_bindir}/smatch %{_datadir}/%{name} Thus, the only packaged binary is smatch: $ rpm -ql smatch-1.73-1.fc38.aarch64.rpm | grep bin /usr/bin/smatch e) Good catch! Removed. f) Good catch! LICENSE is now being patched to also list the given instance of the BSD-3-Clause license. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06266246-smatch/smatch.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lzaoral/test_builds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06266246-smatch/smatch-1.73-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 1983006 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5958612 to 6266346
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6266346 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2209024-smatch/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06266346-smatch/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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* MIT License GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License", "Open Software License 1.1". 1367 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/smatch/2209024-smatch/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 23247 bytes in 3 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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: [!]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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: [?]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1556480 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: smatch-1.73-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm smatch-debuginfo-1.73-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm smatch-debugsource-1.73-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm smatch-1.73-1.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/tmp0ayq4qjz')] checks: 31, packages: 4 smatch.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/smatch/smatch_data/kernel.allocation_funcs.remove smatch.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/smatch/smatch_data/smatch_generic.common_functions smatch.spec:28: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(cwchash) smatch.spec:29: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(sparse) smatch.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smatch ============= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 5.4 s ============= Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: smatch-debuginfo-1.73-1.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/tmpr8nkm1wm')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ============= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 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 smatch.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/smatch/smatch_data/kernel.allocation_funcs.remove smatch.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/smatch/smatch_data/smatch_generic.common_functions smatch.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smatch 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 7.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/error27/smatch/archive/1.73/smatch-1.73.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a11273552c49cea0d87e595015c8643257960f068a0d8be28226b84d99dac10c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a11273552c49cea0d87e595015c8643257960f068a0d8be28226b84d99dac10c Requires -------- smatch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) smatch-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): smatch-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- smatch: bundled(cwchash) bundled(sparse) smatch smatch(x86-64) smatch-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) smatch-debuginfo smatch-debuginfo(x86-64) smatch-debugsource: smatch-debugsource smatch-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2209024 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Ruby, Ocaml, fonts, R, Python, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Seems mostly ok. b) Consider raising an issue in the upstream repository https://github.com/error27/smatch or on the mailing list on adding the license information to the License file c) Maybe usr/share/smatch/smatch_data/ should be in a separate non-arched packaged? Not essential.
For licensing see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Approved as is, but adding a comment to the spec file about request for upstream to add missing license and possibly using a separate non-arched package for the data can be done on import should you choose. IF time allows, would appreciate a review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2218044 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2223901 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227502
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smatch