Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868578 Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #8 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- A couple of (non-blocker) comments first. * What is this empty comment line at the top of the spec file? Did you want to add something but forgot? * Try to remove trailing spaces. There's one on the Group: line. * The file re2/testing/unicode_test.py has a wrong shebang (#!/usr/bin/python2.4), however it doesn't seem to be used anywhere (not even during unit tests) and isn't installed, so that can probably be ignored. * Why do you both export the CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS and then pass them again on the make command line? Exporting doesn't seem to do anything, they need to be passed to the command, so you could just do: ----- CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS:-%optflags}" LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:-%__global_ldflags}" make %{?_smp_mflags} CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS" LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS" includedir=%{_includedir} libdir=%{_libdir} ----- * The devel package requires the main package, as such it doesn't need to include the README and LICENSE files. Consider removing them. * The %description for the main package is still **very** long. How about something like this instead: ----- RE2 is a C++ library providing a fast, safe, thread-friendly alternative to backtracking regular expression engines like those used in PCRE, Perl, and Python. Backtracking engines are typically full of features and convenient syntactic sugar but can be forced into taking exponential amounts of time on even small inputs. In contrast, RE2 uses automata theory to guarantee that regular expression searches run in time linear in the size of the input, at the expense of some missing features (e.g back references and generalized assertions). ----- * The %description of the devel subpackage talks about "development helper tools", but there aren't any. Consider removing the misleading statement. Now for the actual review... Summary of issues ================= [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. => Drop the "Requires: pkgconfig" from the devel subpackage, it doesn't provide any pkgconfig file. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. => There are a few "undefined-non-weak-symbol" warnings, which should be fixed. (try "ldd -d -r /usr/lib64/libre2.so.0.0.0" for more details) Adding "-pthread" to the CXXFLAGS seems to be enough. However, if this flags really is necessary, I would strongly suggest you submit a patch upstream so that it gets added to the RE2_CXXFLAGS in the Makefile (as these seem to be the minimum flags which shouldn't be overwritten) => The rest of the warnings can be safely ignored. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. => Try passing the INSTALL="install -p" variable to the make install command. Details ======= Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required => Submitter indicated their intention to maintain EL 5 packages, for which this is necessary. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [-]: 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 [-]: 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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines => See outstanding issues. [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 (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. [-]: 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. => Drop the "Requires: pkgconfig" from the devel subpackage, it doesn't provide any pkgconfig file. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. => There are a few "undefined-non-weak-symbol" warnings, which should be fixed. (try "ldd -d -r /usr/lib64/libre2.so.0.0.0" for more details) Adding "-pthread" to the CXXFLAGS seems to be enough. However, if this flags really is necessary, I would strongly suggest you submit a patch upstream so that it gets added to the RE2_CXXFLAGS in the Makefile (as these seem to be the minimum flags which shouldn't be overwritten) => The rest of the warnings can be safely ignored. [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 20480 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 Note: Buildroot: present but not needed => Submitter indicated their intention to maintain EL 5 packages, for which this is necessary. [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required => Submitter indicated their intention to maintain EL 5 packages, for which this is necessary. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. => Try passing the INSTALL="install -p" variable to the make install command. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: re2-20130115-1.fc19.src.rpm re2-debuginfo-20130115-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm re2-20130115-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm re2-devel-20130115-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm re2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automata -> automate, automaton, automatic re2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti re2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backreferences -> back references, back-references, references re2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irregexp -> regexp, expire re2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automata -> automate, automaton, automatic re2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti re2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backreferences -> back references, back-references, references re2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irregexp -> regexp, expire 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint re2-debuginfo re2 re2-devel re2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automata -> automate, automaton, automatic re2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti re2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backreferences -> back references, back-references, references re2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irregexp -> regexp, expire re2.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libre2.so.0.0.0 pthread_rwlock_rdlock re2.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libre2.so.0.0.0 pthread_rwlock_wrlock re2.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libre2.so.0.0.0 pthread_rwlock_destroy re2.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libre2.so.0.0.0 pthread_rwlock_init re2.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libre2.so.0.0.0 pthread_rwlock_unlock 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- re2-debuginfo-20130115-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): re2-20130115-1.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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) re2-devel-20130115-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libre2.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig re2(x86-64) = 20130115-1.fc19 Provides -------- re2-debuginfo-20130115-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm: re2-debuginfo = 20130115-1.fc19 re2-debuginfo(x86-64) = 20130115-1.fc19 re2-20130115-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm: libre2.so.0()(64bit) re2 = 20130115-1.fc19 re2(x86-64) = 20130115-1.fc19 re2-devel-20130115-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm: re2-devel = 20130115-1.fc19 re2-devel(x86-64) = 20130115-1.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- http://re2.googlecode.com/files/re2-20130115.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a95d83ed8203817587f7cc368b6f7199d8a4b1558372c306b07201058b92e1fe CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a95d83ed8203817587f7cc368b6f7199d8a4b1558372c306b07201058b92e1fe -- 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=gH2j6JGtsV&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review