Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/leloubil/brillo/brillo.git/tree/brillo.spec?h=f39 SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/leloubil/brillo/srpm-builds/07165083/brillo-1.4.12-1.src.rpm Description: Brillo is a software to control the brightness of backlight and LED devices on Linux, with features such as smooth brightness adjustments Fedora Account System Username: LelouBil This is my first review request, since I got a new laptop I began tinkering with atomic fedora and wanted to use packages not packaged as rpms. I plan to contribute multiple other desktop utilities packages that I already use regularly. I am then looking for a sponsor and I will post my introduction on the devel mailing list later this afternoon.
Sorry I didn't read the documentation in the right order, I'm adding the FE-NEEDSPONSOR and I just understood that the introduction is *after* the sponsorship.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7165492 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2269731-brillo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07165492-brillo/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.
I'm not sure if I can make this block FE-NEEDSPONSOR myself, the documentation here https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/#requesting_sponsorship implied that I needed to do it.
srpm file is not available spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/leloubil/brillo/fedora-40-x86_64/07165083-brillo/brillo.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/leloubil/brillo/fedora-40-x86_64/07165083-brillo/brillo-1.4.12-1.fc40.src.rpm [fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8171218 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2269731-brillo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08171218-brillo/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.
You can add tags such as FE-NEEDSPONSOR yourself, but have done so.
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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 0-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 0-Clause License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/brillo/2269731-brillo/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. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/polkit-1/actions, /usr/lib/udev, /usr/share/polkit-1, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d [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. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2768 bytes in 1 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. [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 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: brillo-1.4.12-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm brillo-debuginfo-1.4.12-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm brillo-debugsource-1.4.12-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm brillo-1.4.12-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================================= rpmlint session starts ============================================= rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmp5d2zdfnm')] checks: 32, packages: 4 brillo.src: E: spelling-error ('backlight', 'Summary(en_US) backlight -> back light, back-light, fightback') brillo.src: E: spelling-error ('backlight', '%description -l en_US backlight -> back light, back-light, fightback') brillo.src: E: spelling-error ('sysfs', '%description -l en_US sysfs -> sysops') brillo.src: E: spelling-error ('setuid', '%description -l en_US setuid -> setup') brillo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('backlight', 'Summary(en_US) backlight -> back light, back-light, fightback') brillo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('backlight', '%description -l en_US backlight -> back light, back-light, fightback') brillo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('sysfs', '%description -l en_US sysfs -> sysops') brillo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('setuid', '%description -l en_US setuid -> setup') ======= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 4.6 s ======== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: brillo-debuginfo-1.4.12-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ============================================= rpmlint session starts ============================================= rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpvv_m5cgc')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ======== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s ======== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 3 brillo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('backlight', 'Summary(en_US) backlight -> back light, back-light, fightback') brillo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('backlight', '%description -l en_US backlight -> back light, back-light, fightback') brillo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('sysfs', '%description -l en_US sysfs -> sysops') brillo.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('setuid', '%description -l en_US setuid -> setup') 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 4.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/cameronnemo/brillo/-/archive/v1.4.12/brillo-v1.4.12.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 917bf56b8d860ed397626e11a0ebe21e26717488bc31e6317ba1bb3bb05b86f1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 917bf56b8d860ed397626e11a0ebe21e26717488bc31e6317ba1bb3bb05b86f1 Requires -------- brillo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) brillo-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): brillo-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- brillo: brillo brillo(x86-64) brillo-debuginfo: brillo-debuginfo brillo-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) brillo-debugsource: brillo-debugsource brillo-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2269731 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, Java, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125818338 b) Are extra requires needed so that /usr/share/polkit-1/actions, /usr/lib/udev, /usr/share/polkit-1, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d have owners? c) Can you add a license breakdown in the spec file?