Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=881794 --- Comment #6 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Issues, in no particular order: 1. The system makes calls out to some binaries that are not Requires. a. "clear", which is in the ncurses package b. "less", which is in the less package c. "mkdir" and "mv", which are in the coreutils package d. "gnuplot", which is in the gnuplot or gnuplot-minimal package I am not concerned about (c), because I doubt a system can function without the coreutils package installed, but consider the rest. 2. The program is built with "-O0 -g" instead of the proper compiler flags, because %configure sets FFLAGS, but the Makefile expects FCFLAGS. 3. The COPYING file is in %{_datadir}/%{name} because the program expects to be able to read it from there to display to users. Why are AUTHORS, README, and TODO there? That seems to me to be the wrong place. They should be in %{_docdir}/%{name} instead. 4. On a related note, AUTHORS, README, etc. are all properly marked %doc, meaning they can be omitted in a no-docs install. But COPYING shouldn't be marked %doc, because the program expects it to always be present. 5. The RPM is required to be written in American English. The rpmlint run shows that two words in the description use British English spellings. They should be changed as indicated by rpmlint. 6. I echo the concerns about the summary given in comment 1 and comment 2. I suggest you go with Adrienne's summary. Note that the summary in the spec file and the bug summary should match. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. The package is built with the flags "-O0 -g". The problem appears to be that RPM's %configure macro sets FFLAGS, but the Makefile uses FCFLAGS. [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. [x]: 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]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/881794-c-graph/licensecheck.txt [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. 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. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. I think ncurses, less, and gnuplot should also be Requires. See above. [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. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. The rpmlint run shows two words with British English spellings. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: 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 317440 bytes in 1 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) [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. [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). [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. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. The timestamp on README is not preserved. [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. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1228800 bytes in /usr/share 1228800 c-graph-2.0-1.fc19.i686.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: c-graph-2.0-1.fc19.src.rpm c-graph-2.0-1.fc19.i686.rpm c-graph-debuginfo-2.0-1.fc19.i686.rpm c-graph.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Honours -> Hon ours, Hon-ours, Honors c-graph.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modelled -> modeled, model led, model-led c-graph.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.gnu.org/software/c-graph timed out c-graph.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Honours -> Hon ours, Hon-ours, Honors c-graph.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modelled -> modeled, model led, model-led 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint c-graph-debuginfo c-graph c-graph.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Honours -> Hon ours, Hon-ours, Honors c-graph.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modelled -> modeled, model led, model-led 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- c-graph-2.0-1.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ImageMagick info libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgfortran.so.3 libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4) libm.so.6 libquadmath.so.0 rtld(GNU_HASH) c-graph-debuginfo-2.0-1.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- c-graph-2.0-1.fc19.i686.rpm: c-graph = 2.0-1.fc19 c-graph(x86-32) = 2.0-1.fc19 c-graph-debuginfo-2.0-1.fc19.i686.rpm: c-graph-debuginfo = 2.0-1.fc19 c-graph-debuginfo(x86-32) = 2.0-1.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/c-graph/c-graph-2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 016c7cbe21747039394c5b89d43f8aad4dfd978acec7364671ffc303f3bf9bc2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 016c7cbe21747039394c5b89d43f8aad4dfd978acec7364671ffc303f3bf9bc2 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 881794 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=W0Cb9C9uG4&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review