https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819951 --- Comment #20 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Odd, I did a re-review just before you posted 2012.12, and distinctly recalled posting it, but now it's gone. Either there was a Bugzilla problem or the request timed out in my browser without me noticing. Most issues are still valid, please see the (blessedly short) issues list at the top of the review. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Package installs properly. Red herring - linux-user-chroot is not pushed to F-18 yet. When releasing this, both should be pushed out in the same update Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines [!]: 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. The COPYING* files must, and README.md and TODO files should, be listed as %doc [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define enable_embedded_dependencies 0 %define build_name ostree- embeddeps %define build_name ostree %define embedded_dependencies_option --enable-embedded-dependencies %define embedded_dependencies_option %{nil} ===== 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. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/sources/fedora/reviews/819951-ostree/licensecheck.txt [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 no Conflicts: tag(s) [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. [!]: Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 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 [-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Also targeting RHEL 6, so this is still needed Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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. Not working with new repo format, but this can be fixed later [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. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define enable_embedded_dependencies 0 %define build_name ostree- embeddeps %define build_name ostree %define embedded_dependencies_option --enable-embedded-dependencies %define embedded_dependencies_option %{nil} ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.26 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Mock Version: 1.1.26 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.26 Start: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/michel/sources/fedora/reviews/819951-ostree/results/ostree-debuginfo-2012.11-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm /home/michel/sources/fedora/reviews/819951-ostree/results/ostree-2012.11-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/', 'install', '/home/michel/sources/fedora/reviews/819951-ostree/results/ostree-debuginfo-2012.11-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm', '/home/michel/sources/fedora/reviews/819951-ostree/results/ostree-2012.11-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] Error: Package: ostree-2012.11-1.fc18.x86_64 (/ostree-2012.11-1.fc18.x86_64) Requires: linux-user-chroot You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Rpmlint ------- Checking: ostree-2012.11-1.fc18.src.rpm ostree-debuginfo-2012.11-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm ostree-2012.11-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm ostree.src: E: no-changelogname-tag ostree-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag ostree-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/ostree-2012.11/src/daemon/ot-daemon.c ostree.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag ostree.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ostree-switch-root ostree.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ostree-pull ostree.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ostree-run-triggers 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- ostree-debuginfo-2012.11-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ostree-2012.11-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libostree.so()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit) linux-user-chroot rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ostree-debuginfo-2012.11-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm: ostree-debuginfo = 2012.11-1.fc18 ostree-debuginfo(x86-64) = 2012.11-1.fc18 ostree-2012.11-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm: libostree.so()(64bit) ostree = 2012.11-1.fc18 ostree(x86-64) = 2012.11-1.fc18 Unversioned so-files -------------------- ostree-2012.11-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/ostree/libostree.so MD5-sum check ------------- http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/ostree/2012.11/ostree-2012.11.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 423d8db813478bdff87edb68796a6f8893748ca3f72cb48314f437172ecb2ead CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 423d8db813478bdff87edb68796a6f8893748ca3f72cb48314f437172ecb2ead Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-18-x86_64 -b 819951 -- 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