Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/re-review/unshield.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/re-review/unshield-1.5.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: This tool allows the extraction of InstallShield format cabinet files (which are different from Microsoft cabinet files). It was initially developed as a part of the SynCE project to aid with installing applications for Pocket PC devices, which were often contained in InstallShield installers, but these days that is rather less likely to be the primary use case. Fedora Account System Username: peter Ths app is required for extracting some games' data-files. Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125704238
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8239185 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2324996-unshield/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08239185-unshield/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/unshield Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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 Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/unshield See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "Unicode strict", "NTP License". 49 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/unshield/2324996-unshield/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %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. [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. [ ]: 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. [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 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 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 3503 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in unshield-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [!]: %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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: unshield-1.5.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm unshield-devel-1.5.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm unshield-debuginfo-1.5.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm unshield-debugsource-1.5.1-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm unshield-1.5.1-1.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/tmpp2jmc_1t')] checks: 32, packages: 5 unshield-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ==== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 39 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 5.4 s ==== Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: unshield-debuginfo-1.5.1-1.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/tmp20hmi62z')] checks: 32, packages: 1 ==== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 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: 4 unshield-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 36 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 5.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/twogood/unshield/archive/1.5.1/unshield-1.5.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 34cd97ff1e6f764436d71676e3d6842dc7bd8e2dd5014068da5c560fe4661f60 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 34cd97ff1e6f764436d71676e3d6842dc7bd8e2dd5014068da5c560fe4661f60 Requires -------- unshield (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libunshield.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) unshield-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libunshield.so.0()(64bit) unshield(x86-64) unshield-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): unshield-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- unshield: libunshield.so.0()(64bit) unshield unshield(x86-64) unshield-devel: pkgconfig(libunshield) unshield-devel unshield-devel(x86-64) unshield-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libunshield.so.0.0.0-1.5.1-1.fc42.x86_64.debug()(64bit) unshield-debuginfo unshield-debuginfo(x86-64) unshield-debugsource: unshield-debugsource unshield-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2324996 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, fonts, R, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) There are tests available. Can they be run? b) ConvertUTF is bundled and has a different license: https://github.com/twogood/unshield/tree/main/lib/convert_utf md5 is also bundled and has a different license: https://github.com/twogood/unshield/blob/main/lib/md5/md5c.c Output of license checking tool: BSD 2-Clause with views sentence -------------------------------- unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/win32_msvc/getopt.h MIT License ----------- unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/LICENSE unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/win32_msvc/dirent.h NTP License ----------- unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/lib/md5/md5.h unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/lib/md5/md5c.c Unicode strict -------------- unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/lib/convert_utf/ConvertUTF.c unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/lib/convert_utf/ConvertUTF.h c) If OpenSSL is included as a dependency, md5 does not need to be bundled: https://github.com/twogood/unshield/blob/main/CMakeLists.txt#L49
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2) > Comments: > a) There are tests available. Can they be run? Unfortunately tests require internet access for downloading a cab-archives from Dropbox. > b) ConvertUTF is bundled and has a different license: > https://github.com/twogood/unshield/tree/main/lib/convert_utf > > md5 is also bundled and has a different license: > https://github.com/twogood/unshield/blob/main/lib/md5/md5c.c > > Output of license checking tool: > > BSD 2-Clause with views sentence > -------------------------------- > unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/win32_msvc/getopt.h Not used for building and we don't ship it. > > MIT License > ----------- > unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/LICENSE > unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/win32_msvc/dirent.h > Not used for building and we don't ship it. > NTP License > ----------- > unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/lib/md5/md5.h > unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/lib/md5/md5c.c Switched to OpenSSL version. > Unicode strict > -------------- > unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/lib/convert_utf/ConvertUTF.c > unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/lib/convert_utf/ConvertUTF.h > Asked Fedora_legal about a proper SPDX tag for this one. > c) If OpenSSL is included as a dependency, md5 does not need to be bundled: > https://github.com/twogood/unshield/blob/main/CMakeLists.txt#L49 New files: Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/re-review/unshield.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/re-review/unshield-1.5.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125921842
Created attachment 2058131 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8239185 to 8271090
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8271090 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2324996-unshield/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08271090-unshield/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/unshield Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
> Unicode strict > -------------- > unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/lib/convert_utf/ConvertUTF.c > unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/lib/convert_utf/ConvertUTF.h Unfortunately, Fedora-legal said that this is not acceptable licensing. Let me try to unbundle it first. Meanwhile I have to block it with FE-LEGAL
(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #6) > > Unicode strict > > -------------- > > unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/lib/convert_utf/ConvertUTF.c > > unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/lib/convert_utf/ConvertUTF.h > > Unfortunately, Fedora-legal said that this is not acceptable licensing. Let > me try to unbundle it first. Meanwhile I have to block it with FE-LEGAL I rewrote problematic code and submitted it upstream. As soon as this patch will be accepted (if it will be accepted) I'll unblock FE-Legal. * https://github.com/twogood/unshield/pull/185
(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #7) > (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #6) > > > Unicode strict > > > -------------- > > > unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/lib/convert_utf/ConvertUTF.c > > > unshield-1.5.1-build/unshield-1.5.1/lib/convert_utf/ConvertUTF.h > > > > Unfortunately, Fedora-legal said that this is not acceptable licensing. Let > > me try to unbundle it first. Meanwhile I have to block it with FE-LEGAL > > I rewrote problematic code and submitted it upstream. As soon as this patch > will be accepted (if it will be accepted) I'll unblock FE-Legal. > > * https://github.com/twogood/unshield/pull/185 Merged upstream. I am unblocking FE-Legal.
Thanks. Please upload new srpm.
New files: Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/re-review/unshield.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/re-review/unshield-1.5.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126275374
Created attachment 2059898 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8271090 to 8316005
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8316005 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2324996-unshield/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08316005-unshield/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/unshield Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Thanks. Could a commit without the problematic code be packaged? Or the patch applied before import? See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#when-upstream-uses-prohibited-code The unicode license is on the not allowed list: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #13) > Thanks. Could a commit without the problematic code be packaged? Or the patch > applied before import? > > See > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#when- > upstream-uses-prohibited-code > The unicode license is on the not allowed list: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/not-allowed-licenses/ Heads up! Upstream just released version 1.6.0 without problematic code: * https://github.com/twogood/unshield/releases/tag/1.6.0 Unfortunately there is another technical issue with this release - a bloated tarball (1000 times bigger than previous 1.5.1 release). I'll post a new release as soon as upstream addressed this issue.
New files: Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/re-review/unshield.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/re-review/unshield-1.6.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131030101 The problematic code was entirely removed in this version and tarball becomes even smaller than in 1.5.1.
Created attachment 2083151 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8316005 to 8853810
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8853810 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2324996-unshield/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08853810-unshield/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/unshield Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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 Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/unshield See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "NTP License". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/unsheild/2324996- unshield/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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]: 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 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 2990 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in unshield-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [ ]: %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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: unshield-1.6.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm unshield-devel-1.6.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm unshield-1.6.1-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpukq0ykrn')] checks: 32, packages: 3 unshield-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation unshield.spec: W: no-%check-section 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: unshield-debuginfo-1.6.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpvv97suy3')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 unshield-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 32 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/twogood/unshield/archive/1.6.1/unshield-1.6.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3f477d177e5ab805d41e5d06bb8cc42540769dd937ddc78e2e07f9f853034d66 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3f477d177e5ab805d41e5d06bb8cc42540769dd937ddc78e2e07f9f853034d66 Requires -------- unshield (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) libunshield.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) unshield-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libunshield.so.1()(64bit) unshield(x86-64) Provides -------- unshield: libunshield.so.1()(64bit) unshield unshield(x86-64) unshield-devel: cmake(unshield) pkgconfig(libunshield) unshield-devel unshield-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2324996 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: R, PHP, fonts, Haskell, Python, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) 1.6.2 was released though it does not seem to have many changes compared to 1.6.1, it does address: https://github.com/twogood/unshield/issues/194 b) As the tests cannot be included because of the data, perhaps a smoke test can be run? For example unshield -h c) Approved
Thanks!
FEDORA-2025-253b4fd7e6 (unshield-1.6.2-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-253b4fd7e6
FEDORA-2025-0ae491f0c5 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-0ae491f0c5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-0ae491f0c5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-253b4fd7e6 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-253b4fd7e6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-253b4fd7e6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-0ae491f0c5 (unshield-1.6.2-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-253b4fd7e6 (unshield-1.6.2-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.