https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860146 --- Comment #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Executive summary: - static subpackage should not exist unless there is a good reason (I don't think anyone should link to an sqlite wrapper statically) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guideliones#Packaging_Static_Libraries Even you as upstream don't install static libraries, just manually in the spec file so...just skip that - it's customary for upstream to run autogen themselves and distribute a ready-made configure scripts/makefiles. This is to save distributions from handling regen themselves (which might need newer/older autotools etc) - You have duplicate line in %install section (which should be removed for static subpackage anyway...) install -p -m 755 -d %{buildroot}%{_libdir} - devel subpackage does not require ldconfig to be run - Including VERSION in %doc does not really make much sense, since it's apparent from rpm version ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Although I don't understand why project is called vsqlite-- and tarballs are vsqlite++... [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: vsqlite++-devel-0.3.7-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm vsqlite++-debuginfo-0.3.7-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm vsqlite++-0.3.7-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm vsqlite++-0.3.7-1.fc19.src.rpm vsqlite++-static-0.3.7-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm vsqlite++-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vsqlite -> satellite vsqlite++-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vsqlite -> satellite vsqlite++-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vsqlite -> satellite vsqlite++-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vsqlite -> satellite vsqlite++.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sqlite -> sq lite, sq-lite, satellite vsqlite++.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ibrary -> library, vibratory vsqlite++.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sqlite -> sq lite, sq-lite, satellite vsqlite++.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ibrary -> library, vibratory vsqlite++-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vsqlite -> satellite vsqlite++-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvsqlitepp vsqlite++-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vsqlite -> satellite vsqlite++-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint vsqlite++-debuginfo vsqlite++-devel vsqlite++-static vsqlite++ vsqlite++-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vsqlite -> satellite vsqlite++-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vsqlite -> satellite vsqlite++-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vsqlite -> satellite vsqlite++-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vsqlite -> satellite vsqlite++-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vsqlite -> satellite vsqlite++-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvsqlitepp vsqlite++-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vsqlite -> satellite vsqlite++-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation vsqlite++.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sqlite -> sq lite, sq-lite, satellite vsqlite++.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ibrary -> library, vibratory vsqlite++.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libvsqlitepp.so.3.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/w0rm/work/projects/fedora-review/860146-vsqlite++/srpm/vsqlite++.spec 2012-09-25 11:01:41.796667567 +0200 +++ /home/w0rm/work/projects/fedora-review/860146-vsqlite++/srpm-unpacked/vsqlite++.spec 2012-09-25 11:01:43.004663656 +0200 @@ -70,4 +70,4 @@ %changelog -* Tue Sep 25 2012 Vinzenz Feenstra <evilissimo@xxxxxxxxx> - 0.3.7-1 +* Sat Sep 22 2012 Vinzenz Feenstra <evilissimo@xxxxxxxxx> - 0.3.7-1 - Initial package Requires -------- vsqlite++-devel-0.3.7-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libvsqlitepp.so.3()(64bit) vsqlite++ = 0.3.7-1.fc19 vsqlite++-debuginfo-0.3.7-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vsqlite++-0.3.7-1.fc19.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) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) vsqlite++-static-0.3.7-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vsqlite++-devel = 0.3.7-1.fc19 Provides -------- vsqlite++-devel-0.3.7-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm: vsqlite++-devel = 0.3.7-1.fc19 vsqlite++-devel(x86-64) = 0.3.7-1.fc19 vsqlite++-debuginfo-0.3.7-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm: vsqlite++-debuginfo = 0.3.7-1.fc19 vsqlite++-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.3.7-1.fc19 vsqlite++-0.3.7-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm: libvsqlitepp.so.3()(64bit) vsqlite++ = 0.3.7-1.fc19 vsqlite++(x86-64) = 0.3.7-1.fc19 vsqlite++-static-0.3.7-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm: vsqlite++-static = 0.3.7-1.fc19 vsqlite++-static(x86-64) = 0.3.7-1.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/downloads/vinzenz/vsqlite--/vsqlite++-0.3.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 722257e2b0033219f51eddc546ebed63b3c0ef4896c2c28a37f3c80b57f9184f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 722257e2b0033219f51eddc546ebed63b3c0ef4896c2c28a37f3c80b57f9184f Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (27e7615) last change: 2012-09-20 Buildroot used: fedora-raw-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 860146 All in all pretty solid work for first package. Please fix the problems or explain your decisions. When you make changes please also raise release tag and add a changelog entry. -- 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