Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846008 --- Comment #18 from Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Ok so here are the final comments: Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. 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. [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. [x]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [-]: 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. [!]: 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). [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dsqlite-1.0-2.x86_64.rpm dsqlite-1.0-2.src.rpm dsqlite-devel-1.0-2.x86_64.rpm dsqlite.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr_FR dsqlite.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 dsqlite.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sqlite -> sq lite, sq-lite, satellite dsqlite-devel.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr dsqlite-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language dsqlite-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint dsqlite-devel dsqlite dsqlite-devel.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr dsqlite-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language dsqlite-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation dsqlite.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr_FR dsqlite.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 __data_start dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 _Dmain dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_column_text dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_close dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_column_int dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_reset dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_bind_int dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_clear_bindings dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_exec dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_bind_double dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_column_database_name dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_bind_int64 dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_finalize dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_column_type dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_column_table_name dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_bind_text dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_column_origin_name dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_step dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_column_count dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_errmsg dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_column_name dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_prepare_v2 dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_column_double dsqlite.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 sqlite3_open dsqlite.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 /lib64/librt.so.1 dsqlite.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 /lib64/libdl.so.2 dsqlite.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 dsqlite.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libDSQLite-ldc.so.1 /lib64/libm.so.6 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 31 warnings. All these rpmlint warnings can be ignored safely. MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/downloads/bioinfornatics/DSQLite/dsqlite-1.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bd86303a0817ae27678abb28907ccd0035fd12d22d02cf3c28a4070372fcddc8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bd86303a0817ae27678abb28907ccd0035fd12d22d02cf3c28a4070372fcddc8 So the last thing to correct is: [!]: Dist tag is present. which in this case is absent (why?). Please fix this and I will approve the package -- 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