Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=886900 Tomas Hozza <thozza@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Tomas Hozza <thozza@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. 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.<F2> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed - Not an issue! [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 [-]: 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. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: 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. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. - With some exceptions because this is a cross-compiler package. [-]: 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. [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) [-]: 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. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (binutils-2012.09-63.tar.bz2) Source1 (README.fedora) - Not an issue. Source0 is just a part of upstream tarball. It is unnecessary to rename it. [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. [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. [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: arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-2012.09.63-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo-2012.09.63-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-2012.09.63-1.fc17.src.rpm arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2012.09_63-1 ['2012.09.63-1.fc17', '2012.09.63-1'] arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-ar /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/ar arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-as /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/as arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/ld.bfd /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-ld arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-ld.bfd /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/ld.bfd arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/objdump /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-objdump arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/objcopy /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-objcopy arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-strip /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/strip arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/ld /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-ld.bfd arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/ranlib /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-ranlib arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/nm /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-nm arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary arm-none-eabi-ld.bfd arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr arm-none-eabi arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/binutils-2012.09/bfd/elf-nacl.h arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/binutils-2012.09/bfd/elf-nacl.c arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/binutils-2012.09/bfd/elf-vxworks.c arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/binutils-2012.09/bfd/elf-vxworks.h - Please notify upstream about this issue. Anyway this is not preventing this package to be approved. arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/binutils-2012.09/include/elf/epiphany.h arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{cs_pkgnum} arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{target} arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{processor_arch} arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{cs_date} arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{cs_rel} arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{target} arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.src:22: W: macro-in-comment %{processor_arch} arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.src:22: W: macro-in-comment %{cs_date} arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.src:22: W: macro-in-comment %{cs_rel} arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.src:22: W: macro-in-comment %{target} arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: binutils-2012.09-63.tar.bz2 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 25 warnings. - Warnings are commented and explained in Comment #1. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/binutils-2012.09/bfd/elf-nacl.h arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/binutils-2012.09/bfd/elf-nacl.c arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/binutils-2012.09/bfd/elf-vxworks.c arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/binutils-2012.09/bfd/elf-vxworks.h arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/binutils-2012.09/include/elf/epiphany.h arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2012.09_63-1 ['2012.09.63-1.fc17', '2012.09.63-1'] arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-ar /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/ar arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-as /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/as arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/ld.bfd /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-ld arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-ld.bfd /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/ld.bfd arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/objdump /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-objdump arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/objcopy /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-objcopy arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-strip /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/strip arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/ld /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-ld.bfd arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/ranlib /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-ranlib arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-none-eabi/bin/nm /usr/bin/arm-none-eabi-nm arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary arm-none-eabi-ld.bfd arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr arm-none-eabi 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 14 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-2012.09.63-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo-2012.09.63-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-2012.09.63-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs = 2012.09.63-1.fc17 arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs(x86-64) = 2012.09.63-1.fc17 arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo-2012.09.63-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo = 2012.09.63-1.fc17 arm-none-eabi-binutils-cs-debuginfo(x86-64) = 2012.09.63-1.fc17 Everything looks good. This package HAS BEEN APPROVED! -- 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=Y2K1PCVCwO&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review