Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871197 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: [+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue ** Mandatory review guidelines: ** [?] rpmlint output: [ankur@dhcppc1 SRPMS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm ../SPECS/python-catkin.spec ./python-catkin-0.4.5-4.gitd4f1f24.fc18.src.rpm python-catkin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary catkin_install_parse python-catkin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-catkin python-catkin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary git-catkin-track-all python-catkin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary catkin-version python-catkin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary catkin-parse-stack python-catkin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary catkin-bump-version python-catkin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary catkin-build-debs-of-workspace python-catkin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary catkin-topological-order python-catkin.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ros-catkin-0.4.5-0-gd4f1f24.tar.gz python-catkin-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation python-catkin-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/catkin/cmake/templates/setup.sh.installable.in 0644L /bin/sh python-catkin-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/catkin/cmake/templates/setup.sh.installable.in.etc 0644L /bin/sh python-catkin-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/catkin/cmake/templates/setup.zsh.installable.in 0644L /bin/zsh python-catkin-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/catkin/cmake/templates/setup.bash.installable.in 0644L /bin/bash python-catkin-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/catkin/cmake/templates/setup.bash.buildspace.in 0644L /bin/bash python-catkin-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/catkin/cmake/templates/update_project_index.py.in 0644L /usr/bin/env python-catkin-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/catkin/cmake/templates/setup.sh.buildspace.in 0644L /bin/sh python-catkin-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/catkin/cmake/templates/setup.zsh.buildspace.in 0644L /bin/zsh python-catkin-devel.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/catkin/cmake/interrogate_setup_dot_py.py 0644L /usr/bin/env ../SPECS/python-catkin.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: ros-catkin-0.4.5-0-gd4f1f24.tar.gz python-catkin.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ros-catkin-0.4.5-0-gd4f1f24.tar.gz 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 12 warnings. [ankur@dhcppc1 SRPMS]$ ^^ Couple of rpmlint errors. Can be easily corrected. [+] License is acceptable [+] License field in spec is correct [?] License files included in package %docs if included in source package [?] License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed ^^ Couldn't find a license file. Please request upstream to include one. [+] Spec written in American English [+] Spec is legible [-] Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues ^^ NA: generated from git tag [+] Build succeeds on at least one primary arch [+] Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed [+] BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary [-] Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/* [-] %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files [-] No bundled libs [-] Relocatability is justified [+] Package owns all directories it creates [+] Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own [+] No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files [+] File permissions are sane [+] Package contains permissible code or content [-] Large docs go in -doc subpackage [+] %doc files not required at runtime [-] Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides [+] Development files go in -devel package [+] -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa ^^ No isa, but it's a noarch [+] No .la files [+] GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install [+] File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification [+] File names are valid UTF-8 ** Optional review guidelines: ** [?] Query upstream about including license files ^^ Required [-] Translations of description, summary [+] Builds in mock [+] Builds on all arches [?] Functions as described (e.g. no crashes) ^^ Need to check this [-] Scriptlets are sane [+] Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible [+] .pc file subpackage placement is sensible [+] No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin [+] Include man pages if available Naming guidelines: [+] Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+ [+] Package names are sane [+] No naming conflicts [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] Version is sane [+] Version does not contain ~ [+] Release is sane [+] %dist tag [+] Case used only when necessary [-] Renaming handled correctly Packaging guidelines: [+] Useful without external bits [-] No kmods [-] Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep [+] Sources contain only redistributable code or content [+] Spec format is sane [+] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target [+] No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17 [-] Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run [-] Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17 [-] No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local [+] Changelog in prescribed format [+] No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags [+] Summary does not end in a period [?] Correct BuildRoot tag on < EL6 [?] Correct %clean section on < EL6 ^^ Do we intend to support EPEL for ROS? Could be a good thing. [+] Requires correct, justified where necessary [+] Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly [+] All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc [+] Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x) [+] Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc [+] Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise [-] PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs [-] Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified [+] Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6 [+] No static executables [+] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs [+] Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config [+] No config files under /usr [-] Third party package manager configs acceptable, in %_docdir [-] .desktop files are sane [+] Spec uses macros consistently [+] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate [+] Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed [-] %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work [+] Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time [+] Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir [+] No software collections (scl) [-] Macro files named /etc/rpm/macros.%name [+] Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs [+] %global, not %define [-] Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it [-] Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel [+] File ops preserve timestamps [+] Parallel make [+] No Requires(pre,post) notation [-] User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups) [-] Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www [-] Conflicts are justified [+] One project per package [+] No bundled fonts [+] Patches have appropriate commentary [-] Available test suites executed in %check [-] tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15 ** Python guidelines: ** [+] Runtime Requires correct [+] Python macros declared on < EL6 [+] All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts [+] Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated [+] Provides/Requires properly filtered [-] Code that invokes gtk.gdk.get_pixels_array() Requires numpy Typo in the -devel package's Requires: The docs say that it requires python-catkin_pkg to build, but we haven't packaged it yet. http://www.ros.org/wiki/catkin Could this be because the current package version is 0.5.65? https://github.com/ros/catkin/tags While this package can be approved after a few fixes, I think the newest version should be packaged and reviewed. Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur -- 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=KSNlAQx5id&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review