https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845308 Jonathan Dieter <jdieter@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jdieter@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jdieter@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files devel section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [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. [x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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. [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. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* zlib/libpng" [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. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Package creates /usr/include/GL, but doesn't own it. [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). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Note: There is no justification for the solib patch. I would probably just write a comment explaining the purpose of the patch [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. [x]: 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: [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files devel section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: 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 License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* zlib/libpng" IANAL, but I suspect "zlib and LGPLv2+" is right for this. I'm not sure what to do about the wrong FSF address. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines [!]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Package creates /usr/include/GL, but doesn't own it, and none of its requires own it. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function [!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Note: There is no justification for the solib patch. I would probably just write a comment explaining the purpose of the patch See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Fedora-specific_.28or_rejected_upstream.29_patches Rpmlint ------- Checking: glui-2.36-1.fc17.src.rpm glui-devel-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm glui-debuginfo-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm glui-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm glui.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkboxes -> check boxes, check-boxes, checkbooks glui-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkboxes -> check boxes, check-boxes, checkbooks glui-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/glui-2.36/src/glui_tree.cpp glui.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkboxes -> check boxes, check-boxes, checkbooks 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint glui-debuginfo glui-debuginfo.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US glui-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/glui-2.36/src/glui_tree.cpp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- glui-devel-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glui = 2.36-1.fc17 glui-debuginfo-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glui-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- glui-devel-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: glui-devel = 2.36-1.fc17 glui-devel(x86-64) = 2.36-1.fc17 glui-debuginfo-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: glui-debuginfo = 2.36-1.fc17 glui-debuginfo(x86-64) = 2.36-1.fc17 glui-2.36-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: glui = 2.36-1.fc17 glui(x86-64) = 2.36-1.fc17 libglui.so.0()(64bit) MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/glui/glui-2.36.tgz : MD5SUM this package : 9e8d506af9a9428dac09e8cd7bda7c1e MD5SUM upstream package : 9e8d506af9a9428dac09e8cd7bda7c1e Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09 -- 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