https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787713 --- Comment #36 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review (informal, see next comment) =========================================== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [!]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "UNKNOWN", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* GENERATED FILE" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/leamas/FedoraReview/src/787713-FreeSOLID/licensecheck.txt [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [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. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [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 systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: 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. [x]: SHOULD The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [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. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: - Changelog vers only OK on F17. Drop the .f17 suffix in changelog version (2.1.1-9.fc17 -> 2.1.1-9) to make it work for all builds. - Inform upstream about the outdated COPYING file with bad FSF address. - Inform upstream about the empty file MT_Point.h, but keep it until you get a message what to do with it. - Since this is the only usecase, try to build a recent speed-dreams version (which uses system FreeSOLID if available) to check that it builds OK. Seemingly, it does on Ubuntu Rpmlint ------- Checking: FreeSOLID-2.1.1-9.fc15.x86_64.rpm FreeSOLID-2.1.1-9.fc15.src.rpm FreeSOLID-debuginfo-2.1.1-9.fc15.x86_64.rpm FreeSOLID-devel-2.1.1-9.fc15.x86_64.rpm FreeSOLID.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1.1-9.fc17 ['2.1.1-9.fc15', '2.1.1-9'] FreeSOLID.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/FreeSOLID-2.1.1/COPYING FreeSOLID.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/FreeSOLID-2.1.1/COPYING.LIB FreeSOLID-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/include/FreeSOLID/MT_Point.h FreeSOLID-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary freesolid-config 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint FreeSOLID-debuginfo FreeSOLID-debuginfo.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- FreeSOLID-2.1.1-9.fc15.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig info libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libqhull.so.5()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) FreeSOLID-debuginfo-2.1.1-9.fc15.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): FreeSOLID-devel-2.1.1-9.fc15.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/pkg-config FreeSOLID(x86-64) = 2.1.1-9.fc15 libFreeSOLID-2.1.1.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig Provides -------- FreeSOLID-2.1.1-9.fc15.x86_64.rpm: FreeSOLID = 2.1.1-9.fc15 FreeSOLID(x86-64) = 2.1.1-9.fc15 libFreeSOLID-2.1.1.so.0()(64bit) FreeSOLID-debuginfo-2.1.1-9.fc15.x86_64.rpm: FreeSOLID-debuginfo = 2.1.1-9.fc15 FreeSOLID-debuginfo(x86-64) = 2.1.1-9.fc15 FreeSOLID-devel-2.1.1-9.fc15.x86_64.rpm: FreeSOLID-devel = 2.1.1-9.fc15 FreeSOLID-devel(x86-64) = 2.1.1-9.fc15 pkgconfig(FreeSOLID) = 2.1.1 MD5-sum check ------------- http://sourceforge.net/projects/freesolid/files/FreeSOLID/FreeSOLID-2.1.1.zip/FreeSOLID-2.1.1.zip : MD5SUM this package : 835ac39b2fc12a3e18311276f2def5e0 MD5SUM upstream package : 835ac39b2fc12a3e18311276f2def5e0 Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09 Command line :./fedora-review -b 787713 External plugins: -- 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