https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829713 David Cameron <d.g.cameron@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |d.g.cameron@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #12 from David Cameron <d.g.cameron@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi, Here is an informal package review. I could not compile in mock (rawhide) due to build requirements problems DEBUG util.py:258: Getting requirements for grive-0.2.0-2.fc18.src DEBUG util.py:258: --> cmake-2.8.9-0.4.rc3.fc18.i686 DEBUG util.py:258: --> Already installed : libstdc++-devel-4.7.1-5.fc18.i686 DEBUG util.py:258: --> libcurl-devel-7.27.0-2.fc18.i686 DEBUG util.py:258: --> json-c-devel-0.9-5.fc18.i686 DEBUG util.py:258: --> expat-devel-2.1.0-4.fc18.i686 DEBUG util.py:258: --> 1:openssl-devel-1.0.1c-6.fc18.i686 DEBUG util.py:258: --> libgcrypt-devel-1.5.0-6.fc18.i686 DEBUG util.py:258: --> boost-devel-1.48.0-16.fc18.i686 DEBUG util.py:258: --> binutils-devel-2.22.52.0.4-8.fc18.i686 DEBUG util.py:258: Error: Package: boost-python3-1.48.0-16.fc18.i686 (fedora) DEBUG util.py:258: Requires: libpython3.2mu.so.1.0 DEBUG util.py:258: You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem DEBUG util.py:258: You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest DEBUG util.py:348: Child return code was: 1 There was also an rpmlint warning (not picked up by fedora-review but when I ran manually in RHEL6) because you don't have a Group: tag in the spec: W: non-standard-group Unspecified However the review itself shows no problems except the compilation: Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== 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. [!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the package failed to build because of missing BR [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 [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: 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 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. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is 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. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [?]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [?]: MUST Package installs properly. [-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/mock/829713/grive-0.2.0.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 8260b1e6c0369da35ebcfe8c8f840f2b MD5SUM upstream package : 8260b1e6c0369da35ebcfe8c8f840f2b [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. [!]: 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 Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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: [!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the package failed to build because of missing BR Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2 -- 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