https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834069 --- Comment #4 from Paul Wouters <pwouters@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Why is the package name capitalised? I would strongly prefer "clean" for the package name, even if it still uses "Clean" in the directory name used for install. The call to ./remove_tmp_files_linux makes me a little nervous. Also the errors for removing non-existing .o's is not neccessary, perhaps use rm -rf or skip it. The build directory ends up not being versioned. it should be. I also see a lot of compiling happening on package install, by make and clm being run in %post. That is forbidden and MUST be done in the build, and not the install phase. Why dod you do this? Did they not support a DESTDIR equivalent? I think you might need to exclude the ppc platform, as you don't have a precompiler setup for that? Remove the Buildrequires for gcc and make It should use CFLAGS?= instead of CFLAGS= so it does not override rpmbuild's options. I used sed's line in the spec file for that, though upstream should really fix that. eg: sed -i "s/CFLAGS=/CFLAGS?=/g" ./src/tools/clm/Makefile.linux64 The make commands in the spec file are not specifying the proper flags, it should be something like: make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS " CC=gcc When doing that, it fails to build. I think it might be more link flags variable overrides causing failure. %install no longer needs an rm -rf at the start Why does Clean/doc not get shipped in %doc ? There are lot of "cd" commands in the spec file. Can you phase those out and merge those in the cp/mv/rm lines directly? (avoids any potential subshell issues where cwd is forgotten) you don't need to specify %attr(755, root, root) as that's the default. Some of the warnings below are due to the problems listed above. rpmlint: Clean.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Clean Clean.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/htoclean Clean.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/Clean/exe/linker Clean.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/Clean/exe/cocl Clean.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/Clean/ArgEnv/ArgEnvC.c Clean.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/Clean/Directory/Clean System Files/cDirectory.c Clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_startupTrace.dcl Clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_startup.dcl Clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_system.dcl Clean.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/Clean/StdEnv/_startupProfile.dcl Clean.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/Clean/TCPIP/Clean System Files/cTCP_121.h Clean.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/Clean/TCPIP/Clean System Files/cTCP_121.c Clean.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/Clean/Directory/Clean System Files/Clean.h Clean-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 9 warnings. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [!]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Clean-2.4-1.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/Clean/Directory/Clean System Files/Clean.h Clean-2.4-1.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/Clean/TCPIP/Clean System Files/cTCP_121.h [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [ ]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [!]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. ( I added a few sed commands in the spec file to fix some of these) [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc make [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. Note: I think it needs to exclude ppc? [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [!]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/Clean/exe/cg [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [!]: MUST 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 %doc. Note: it should package CleanLicenseConditions.txt in %doc [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: missing, should have: %dir %{_libdir}/Clean [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: MUST Package installs properly. Install compiles things - cannot be done [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. gcc and make are always implied, do not specify these [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. Note: it is not, see above. Also: Clean-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Looks like binaries might have been stripped by the make process? [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/paul/834069/clean2.4_boot.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 558dc5c85322617ea7138a9a6838c89f MD5SUM upstream package : 558dc5c85322617ea7138a9a6838c89f /home/paul/834069/clean2.4_64_boot.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : b715e981dc1ef6702c2f670ad888f9af MD5SUM upstream package : b715e981dc1ef6702c2f670ad888f9af [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [!]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Note: broken [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. Note: add %{?dist} after the Release: number. [ ]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. Note: %post is a problem. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0: http://clean.cs.ru.nl/download/Clean24/linux/clean2.4_boot.tar.gz (clean2.4_boot.tar.gz) Source1: http://clean.cs.ru.nl/download/Clean24/linux/clean2.4_64_boot.tar.gz (clean2.4_64_boot.tar.gz) Source2: htoclean.1 (htoclean.1) Patch0: Clean.32bit.patch (Clean.32bit.patch) Patch1: Clean.clmman.patch (Clean.clmman.patch) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [!]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Note: ppc should probably be excluded? [ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc make See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 [!]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/Clean/exe/cg See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 See: None [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint Clean-2.4-1.i686.rpm Clean.i686: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Clean Clean.i686: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/Clean/exe/cocl Clean.i686: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/Clean/exe/linker Clean.i686: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/htoclean Clean.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/Clean/TCPIP/Clean System Files/cTCP_121.h Clean.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/Clean/Directory/Clean System Files/Clean.h Clean.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/Clean/Directory/Clean System Files/cDirectory.c Clean.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/Clean/StdEnv/_system.dcl Clean.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/Clean/StdEnv/_startupProfile.dcl Clean.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/Clean/StdEnv/_startup.dcl Clean.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/Clean/TCPIP/Clean System Files/cTCP_121.c Clean.i686: E: zero-length /usr/lib/Clean/StdEnv/_startupTrace.dcl Clean.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/Clean/ArgEnv/ArgEnvC.c 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 9 warnings. rpmlint Clean-debuginfo-2.4-1.i686.rpm Clean-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint Clean-2.4-1.src.rpm Clean.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Clean Clean.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch0: Clean.32bit.patch 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Clean-2.4-1.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/Clean/Directory/Clean System Files/Clean.h Clean-2.4-1.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/Clean/TCPIP/Clean System Files/cTCP_121.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review