[Bug 837816] Review Request: ergo - A program for large-scale self-consistent field calculations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837816

--- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> For now you can check the package just on x86_64.
OK, the package builds fine on x86_64.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4483031

Besides addressing the i686 issue, you should add file COPYING to the doc
subpackage too. At least, I don't think that doc packages are an exception from 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing.

Everything else looks good.


$ rpmlint ergo-*.rpm
ergo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functionals -> functional,
functional s, functionary
ergo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multipole -> multiple
ergo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelized -> paralleled,
palatalized, pluralized
ergo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US polarizabilities ->
polarities
ergo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functionals -> functional,
functional s, functionary
ergo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multipole -> multiple
ergo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelized ->
paralleled, palatalized, pluralized
ergo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US polarizabilities ->
polarities
ergo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bin2m
ergo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ergo
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.

All warnings are expected and can be ignored.

---------------------------------
key:

[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[X] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
    - add file COPYING to the doc subpackage too

[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
    $ sha256sum ergo-3.2.tar.gz*
    e50b7f1e6bb51a38ad7056fa3ffba48a045c43dea1d6c7f6fde6c706e8435af4 
ergo-3.2.tar.gz
    e50b7f1e6bb51a38ad7056fa3ffba48a045c43dea1d6c7f6fde6c706e8435af4 
ergo-3.2.tar.gz.upstream

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[X] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. 

[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, ...
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) ...
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), ...
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, ...
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

EPEL <= 5 only:
[+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'

[.] 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: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[X] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]