click-review uses Python3's libmagic bindings to identify the types of files in the click package. However, it requires a mimetype to be returned and only checks that. Many file types are correctly identfied by libmagic but don't have a dedicated filetype, for example .woff files:
$ file uwp/libraries/tinymce/skins/lightgray/fonts/tinymce.woffuwp/libraries/tinymce/skins/lightgray/fonts/tinymce.woff: Web Open Font Format, flavor 65536, length 17204, version 1.0
$ file --mime-type uwp/libraries/tinymce/skins/lightgray/fonts/tinymce.woff
uwp/libraries/tinymce/skins/lightgray/fonts/tinymce.woff: application/octet-stream
Unfortunately, click-review then assumes that any file with mimetype application/octet-stream is a binary, and will therefore reject an architecture:all package which contains such a file.
The click-review tool could handle this situation better; this could be construed as a libmagic(3) bug because there's no mimetype defined for many recognised file types in the magic file, but there are always likely to be files which are not executables and which don't have a mimetype. Shipping a file of arbitrary binary data will currently cause an architecture:all package to fail click review, which is wrong. I suggest that click-review explicitly look for executables (mimetype application/x-executable) and use only their presence to reject arch:all packages, rather than to assume that any unrecognised type is an executable.
https:/