Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920309 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- I'll review it. But first of all I have a questions. * Could you please explain the current situation with open OpenCL implementations in drivers? * So far I found this project, opencl-utils (available in Fedora), and pocl ( http://pocl.sourceforge.net/ ). Is it possible to build, link and execute an OpenCL program with some of these? I mean w/o waiting for open videodrivers to catch up. I fully realize that this wouldn't be fast w/o GPU help but anyway - is it possible? Thanks in advance! Now let's do the official part. REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent (the only warning may be safely ignored) sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/ocl-icd-* ../SRPMS/ocl-icd-2.0.2-1.fc19.src.rpm ocl-icd.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ocl-icd-20130309.tar.bz2 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. - The License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license. I think it's 2-clause BSD, not MIT: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#2-clause_license_.28.22Simplified_BSD_License.22_or_.22FreeBSD_License.22.29 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD?rd=Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD So correct licensing tag is BSD. - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, MUST BE included in %doc. Please mark it as %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. - I don't know how to regenerate tarball used for building a package. Please add to the spec-file's header something like this: * http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/b43-tools.git/tree/b43-tools.spec#n15 + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. - The package MUST own all directories that it creates. You forgot to mark "%{_datadir}/doc/ocl-icd" as %dir in the devel sub-package's %files section. So it should look like this: %files devel %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_includedir}/ocl_icd.h %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ocl-icd.pc %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/OpenCL.pc %{_libdir}/libOpenCL.so %dir %{_datadir}/doc/ocl-icd %dir %{_datadir}/doc/ocl-icd/examples %{_datadir}/doc/ocl-icd/examples/ocl_icd_bindings.c %{_datadir}/doc/ocl-icd/examples/ocl_icd_loader.map + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package and necessary runtime requirement added. + The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a -devel package. - The -devel package MUST require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}. Note %{?_isa} additional tag. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. So here is a summary (with few more small proposals): * Fix Licence field. * Add COPYING as %doc * Add a description of how to regenerate tarball used for building * Add missing unowned directory in *-devel * Add _isa to the dependency on the main package (in the devel sub-package). * You may drop %defattr(-,root,root,-) - it's no longer needed since RHEL5 / Fedora 6. * Regarding this - "autoreconf -v --install || exit 1". You'd better use autoreconf -ivf (note "f" switch). I'm looking forward to hearing from you! -- 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=rGDUeAukL0&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review