11:26 a.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816367
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
- Use install -p to keep timestamps:
install -pm 755
- Package is not installable:
DEBUG util.py:621: Error:
DEBUG util.py:621: Problem: package patator-0.8-1.fc33.noarch requires
python3-impacket, but none of the providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:621: - conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:621: - nothing provides pcapy needed by
python3-impacket-0.9.20-3.fc32.noarch
DEBUG util.py:623: (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages
or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages)
There's a python3-pcapy bit no pcapy alone:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pcapy/blob/master/f/pcapy.spec
As a maintainer of python3-impacket, you could fix the package maybe?
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
===== MUST items =====
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: "GNU Lesser General Public License", "Unknown or
generated",
"GPL (v2)". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/patator/review-
patator/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 30720 bytes in 1 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]: 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 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 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 2.1 starting (python version = 3.8.2)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled ccache
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 2.1
INFO: Mock Version: 2.1
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/bob/packaging/review/patator/review-patator/results/patator-0.8-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed:
# /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/f33-candidate-x86_64/root/
--releasever 33 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local
--disableplugin=spacewalk install
/home/bob/packaging/review/patator/review-patator/results/patator-0.8-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: patator-0.8-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
patator-0.8-1.fc33.src.rpm
patator.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) forcer -> force, forces,
forced
patator.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US forcer -> force,
forces, forced
patator.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary patator
patator.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) forcer -> force, forces, forced
patator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US forcer -> force, forces,
forced
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component