Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=896310 Rich Mattes <richmattes@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from Rich Mattes <richmattes@xxxxxxxxx> --- So here's the fedora-review generated review, and I've checked the things it didn't: Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 1085440 bytes in 175 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ^^^ Note: This is because you used -docs instead of -doc as the name of the subpackage. Change the name of the -docs subpackage to -doc. ===== MUST items ===== 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 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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in odeint- devel , odeint-docs [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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 [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). Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [-]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0 [!]: 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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: odeint-devel-2.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm odeint-docs-2.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm odeint-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US arithmetics -> arithmetic, arithmetic's, arithmetic s odeint-docs.noarch: E: devel-dependency odeint-devel 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint odeint-docs odeint-devel odeint-docs.noarch: E: devel-dependency odeint-devel odeint-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US arithmetics -> arithmetic, arithmetic's, arithmetic s 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- odeint-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): odeint-devel odeint-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): boost-devel Provides -------- odeint-docs: odeint-docs odeint-devel: odeint-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 896310 ==================================================== Some additional comments: Since this is a template header library, the odeint-devel subpackage should also provide odeint-static = version-release: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries We do this for similar template header libraries like eigen3 and libkdtree++ The odeint binary package is never going to be created (since it's empty), so it's not necessary to have Requires: odeint-devel, and to have the big long description in there and also provide it for the -devel subpackage. The main package can just use %{summary} as the description, and not directly Requires: anything. Requiring odeint-devel in the docs is OK, since there is no base package and the docs are development docs. So action items are: - Rename -docs to -doc - Get rid of unneeded stuff in main package - Add a static Provides: - Fix spelling error provided by rpmlint (arithmetics) - Ask upstream about LICENSE (SHOULD, not required for review) -- 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=GNcqJQTyjF&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review