Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909485 Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> --- Spec should be good, there is only minor issues, so approved : Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages This one should be ok, given the file is here to be used as PRELOAD - Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Minor, should not block the review, but can you fix it ? - memstomp.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmemstomp.so /lib64/libz.so.1 this one should be handled upstream - memstomp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmemstomp.so exit Not sure if that's a issue, I guess that's on purpose ? - memstomp.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.4-38573e7d-2 ['0.1.4-2.fc18', '0.1.4-2'] I guess it would be better to fix the changelog or the version, but real fix should be upstream by having proper tarball, and release ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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]: 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) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/909485-memstomp/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define githash 38573e7d [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: memstomp-0.1.4-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm memstomp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US behaviour -> behavior memstomp.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.4-38573e7d-2 ['0.1.4-2.fc18', '0.1.4-2'] memstomp.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL git://fedorapeople.org/home/fedora/wcohen/public_git/memstomp memstomp.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libmemstomp-backtrace-symbols.so libmemstomp-backtrace-symbols.so memstomp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmemstomp-backtrace-symbols.so _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 memstomp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmemstomp-backtrace-symbols.so exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 memstomp.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libmemstomp.so libmemstomp.so memstomp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmemstomp.so exit memstomp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmemstomp.so _exit memstomp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary memstomp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint memstomp memstomp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US behaviour -> behavior memstomp.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.4-38573e7d-2 ['0.1.4-2.fc18', '0.1.4-2'] memstomp.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL git://fedorapeople.org/home/fedora/wcohen/public_git/memstomp memstomp.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libmemstomp-backtrace-symbols.so libmemstomp-backtrace-symbols.so memstomp.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmemstomp-backtrace-symbols.so /lib64/librt.so.1 memstomp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmemstomp-backtrace-symbols.so _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 memstomp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmemstomp-backtrace-symbols.so exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 memstomp.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libmemstomp.so libmemstomp.so memstomp.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmemstomp.so /lib64/librt.so.1 memstomp.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmemstomp.so /lib64/libz.so.1 memstomp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmemstomp.so exit memstomp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmemstomp.so _exit memstomp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary memstomp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- memstomp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) util-linux Provides -------- memstomp: libmemstomp-backtrace-symbols.so()(64bit) libmemstomp.so()(64bit) memstomp memstomp(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- memstomp: /usr/lib64/libmemstomp-backtrace-symbols.so memstomp: /usr/lib64/libmemstomp.so Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (cf29f98) last change: 2013-02-08 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 909485 -- 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=SOW08jR5WH&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review