https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817779 --- Comment #27 from Matthias Runge <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains Conflicts: tag(s) needing fix or justification. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Conflicts [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gzip unzip See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: 'Requires: %%{name} =' in: %package -n seamonkey-enigmail, %package -n thunderbird-enigmail See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. 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. [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gzip unzip [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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package -n seamonkey-enigmail, %package -n thunderbird-enigmail [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (4 clause) ISC", "BSD (3 clause) ISC", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* MPL (v1.0) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause)", "ISC", "Public domain", "CDDL", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "MPL (v1.0.)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "zlib/libpng", "libpng", "BSD (2 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "MPL (v1.0) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "MPL (v1.1)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD (3 clause)", "MPL (v1.0)", "LGPL", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "BSL (v1.0)", "MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "*No copyright* Beerware", "GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "MPL (v1.0) LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mrunge/review/817779-mozilla-enigmail/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains Conflicts: tag(s) needing fix or justification. [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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. Maven: [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [ ]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant ===== 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) [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Dist tag is present. Note: Multiple Release tags found [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch8 (xulrunner-10.0-secondary-ipc.patch) Source10 (thunderbird- mozconfig) Source11 (thunderbird-mozconfig-branded) Patch0 (thunderbird- install-dir.patch) Patch104 (xulrunner-10.0-gcc47.patch) Patch300 (xulrunner-16.0-jemalloc-ppc.patch) Source0 (thunderbird-16.0.source.tar.bz2) Patch200 (thunderbird-8.0-enable- addons.patch) Patch301 (rhbz-855923.patch) Source100 (enigmail-1.4.5.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define system_nss 0 %define system_nss 1 %define debug_build 0 %define system_sqlite 0 %define system_sqlite 1 %define system_cairo 0 %define system_vpx 0 %define system_cairo 1 %define system_vpx 1 %define build_langpacks 1 %define nspr_version 4.9.2 %define nss_version 3.13.3 %define cairo_version 1.10.0 %define freetype_version 2.1.9 %define lcms_version 1.19 %define sqlite_version 3.7.10 %define libnotify_version 0.4 %define _default_patch_fuzz 2 %define tarballdir . %define tarballdir comm-release %define official_branding 1 %define mozappdir %{_libdir}/thunderbird ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [!]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: mozilla-enigmail-debuginfo-1.4.5-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm mozilla-enigmail-1.4.5-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm mozilla-enigmail-1.4.5-2.fc19.src.rpm mozilla-enigmail.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US thunderbird -> Thunderbird, thunder bird, thunder-bird mozilla-enigmail.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US seamonkey -> sea monkey, sea-monkey, SeaMonkey mozilla-enigmail.x86_64: W: no-documentation mozilla-enigmail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US thunderbird -> Thunderbird, thunder bird, thunder-bird mozilla-enigmail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US seamonkey -> sea monkey, sea-monkey, SeaMonkey mozilla-enigmail.src: W: strange-permission thunderbird-mozconfig-branded 0755L mozilla-enigmail.src:60: W: macro-in-comment %define mozilla-enigmail.src:235: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 235) mozilla-enigmail.src: W: invalid-url Source0: thunderbird-16.0.source.tar.bz2 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mozilla-enigmail-debuginfo mozilla-enigmail mozilla-enigmail.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US thunderbird -> Thunderbird, thunder bird, thunder-bird mozilla-enigmail.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US seamonkey -> sea monkey, sea-monkey, SeaMonkey mozilla-enigmail.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/mrunge/review/817779-mozilla-enigmail/srpm/mozilla-enigmail.spec 2012-10-11 08:24:22.313873796 +0200 +++ /home/mrunge/review/817779-mozilla-enigmail/srpm-unpacked/mozilla-enigmail.spec 2012-10-11 08:24:26.491825395 +0200 @@ -44,9 +44,11 @@ %global seam_guid \{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a\} -%global thunver 16.0 -%global thunmax 17.0 - -%global seamver 2.13 -%global seammax 2.15 +# Match version of thunderbird source we use +%global thun_ver 16.0 +%global thun_max 17.0 + +# According to enigmail/package/install.rdf +%global seam_ver 2.13 +%global seam_max 2.15 @@ -70,10 +72,10 @@ Release: 0.1.%{prever}%{?dist} %else -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist} %endif -URL: http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ +URL: http://www.enigmail.net/ License: MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ Group: Applications/Internet -Source0: thunderbird-%{thunver}%{?thunbeta}.source.tar.bz2 +Source0: thunderbird-%{thun_ver}%{?thunbeta}.source.tar.bz2 #NoSource: 0 @@ -89,5 +91,5 @@ Source100: enigmail-%{CVS}.tgz %else -Source100: http://www.mozilla-enigmail.org/download/source/enigmail-%{version}%{?prever}.tar.gz +Source100: http://www.enigmail.net/download/source/enigmail-%{version}%{?prever}.tar.gz %endif @@ -184,6 +186,6 @@ Summary: Authentication and encryption extension for Mozilla Thunderbird Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} -Requires: thunderbird%{?_isa} >= %{thunver} -Conflicts: thunderbird%{?_isa} >= %{thunmax} +Requires: thunderbird%{?_isa} >= %{thun_ver} +Conflicts: thunderbird%{?_isa} >= %{thun_max} %description -n thunderbird-enigmail @@ -196,6 +198,6 @@ Summary: Authentication and encryption extension for SeaMonkey Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} -Requires: seamonkey%{?_isa} >= %{seamver} -Conflicts: seamonkey%{?_isa} >= %{seammax} +Requires: seamonkey%{?_isa} >= %{seam_ver} +Conflicts: seamonkey%{?_isa} >= %{seam_max} %description -n seamonkey-enigmail @@ -368,16 +370,17 @@ # mozilla-enigmail -mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/%{name} -unzip -q objdir/mozilla/dist/bin/enigmail-*-linux-*.xpi -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/%{name} +mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name} +unzip -q objdir/mozilla/dist/bin/enigmail-*-linux-*.xpi \ + -d %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name} # thunderbird-enigmail -mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{mozextdir}/%{thun_guid} -ln -s %{_libdir}/%{name} \ - $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{mozextdir}/%{thun_guid}/%{enig_guid} +mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{mozextdir}/%{thun_guid} +cd %{buildroot}%{mozextdir}/%{thun_guid} +ln -s %{_libdir}/%{name} %{enig_guid} # seamonkey-enigmail -mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{mozextdir}/%{seam_guid} -ln -s %{_libdir}/%{name} \ - $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{mozextdir}/%{seam_guid}/%{enig_guid} +mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{mozextdir}/%{seam_guid} +cd %{buildroot}%{mozextdir}/%{seam_guid} +ln -s %{_libdir}/%{name} %{enig_guid} @@ -410,4 +413,5 @@ - rename to mozilla-enigmail - add thunderbird and enigmail sub package +- fix project URL * Tue Oct 9 2012 Remi Collet <remi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 1.4.5-1 Requires -------- mozilla-enigmail-debuginfo-1.4.5-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mozilla-enigmail-1.4.5-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnupg Provides -------- mozilla-enigmail-debuginfo-1.4.5-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm: mozilla-enigmail-debuginfo = 1.4.5-2.fc19 mozilla-enigmail-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.4.5-2.fc19 mozilla-enigmail-1.4.5-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm: mozilla-enigmail = 1.4.5-2.fc19 mozilla-enigmail(x86-64) = 1.4.5-2.fc19 Unversioned so-files -------------------- mozilla-enigmail-1.4.5-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/mozilla-enigmail/platform/Linux_x86_64-gcc3/components/libenigmime-x86_64-gcc3.so mozilla-enigmail-1.4.5-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/mozilla-enigmail/platform/Linux_x86_64-gcc3/components/libipc-x86_64-gcc3.so MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.mozilla-enigmail.org/download/source/enigmail-1.4.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fa59491fba21de9414a003933349074a8ec1833a1d64cac9f0a9f7020ed6c020 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fa59491fba21de9414a003933349074a8ec1833a1d64cac9f0a9f7020ed6c020 some issues: - you should review the spec and change %define to %global - you should try to document, which files are licensed in which way - I'd just delete lines 114 - 120 (if-statement doing nothing) -- 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