Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894585 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Issues, in no particular order: 1. The documentation is quite large. This can be remedied by NOT listing graphviz as a BR. Then dot won't generate the big class diagrams. I've had to do this for several of my packages, as the interaction diagrams grow quite large. 2. Version 2.9.0 came out 2 days ago. (I checked because of the "latest version is packaged" question below.) 3. The undefined non-weak symbols reported below indicate that the library needs to be linked with -lz -lbz2. 4. The BRs list both atlas-devel, and also blas-devel and lapack-devel. Since atlas is a replacement for the standard blas and lapack, I'm confused. Which one are you trying to use? Also, the final requires don't show either, so are any of them really needed at all? Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 26152960 bytes in 2206 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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]: %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. [x]: 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]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [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. [x]: %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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 28293120 bytes in /usr/share 28272640 coin-or-CoinUtils-devel-2.8.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm 20480 coin-or- CoinUtils-2.8.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm [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: coin-or-CoinUtils-2.8.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm coin-or-CoinUtils-devel-2.8.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint coin-or-CoinUtils coin-or-CoinUtils-devel coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 gzopen coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 gzclose coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 BZ2_bzRead coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 gzwrite coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 BZ2_bzWriteClose coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 BZ2_bzWriteOpen coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 BZ2_bzReadOpen coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 dgetrf_ coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 gzread coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 dgetrs_ coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 BZ2_bzWrite coin-or-CoinUtils.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libCoinUtils.so.3.8.8 BZ2_bzReadClose 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- coin-or-CoinUtils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) coin-or-CoinUtils-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config coin-or-CoinUtils(x86-64) coin-or-Sample libCoinUtils.so.3()(64bit) Provides -------- coin-or-CoinUtils: coin-or-CoinUtils coin-or-CoinUtils(x86-64) libCoinUtils.so.3()(64bit) coin-or-CoinUtils-devel: coin-or-CoinUtils-devel coin-or-CoinUtils-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(coinutils) Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 894585 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -- 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=IqfkzxvpBY&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review