Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822329 --- Comment #24 from Nikita Klimov <nk@xxxxxxx> --- Hi Vasiliy, This is my informal review: Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 4177920 bytes in 290 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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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]: 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. [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. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [!]: 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 [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). ===== 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]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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 4259840 bytes in /usr/share 4239360 libzen-devel-0.4.28-5.fc18.x86_64.rpm 20480 libzen-0.4.28-5.fc18.x86_64.rpm [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: libzen-0.4.28-5.fc18.x86_64.rpm libzen-devel-0.4.28-5.fc18.x86_64.rpm libzen.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmediainfo -> infomercial libzen.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) medianfo -> median libzen.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) libmediainfo libzen.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) and libzen.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(ru) medianfo libzen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmediainfo -> infomercial libzen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US medianfo -> median libzen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l ru libmediainfo libzen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l ru and libzen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l ru medianfo libzen-devel.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/bin/libzen-config libzen-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libzen-config 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libzen-devel libzen libzen-devel.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found ru libzen-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license zlib/libpng libzen-devel.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/bin/libzen-config libzen-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libzen-config libzen.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmediainfo -> infomercial libzen.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) medianfo -> median libzen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmediainfo -> infomercial libzen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US medianfo -> median libzen.x86_64: W: invalid-license zlib/libpng 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- libzen-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libzen(x86-64) libzen.so.0()(64bit) libzen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libzen-devel: libzen-devel libzen-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libzen) libzen: libzen libzen(x86-64) libzen.so.0()(64bit) MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/zenlib/libzen_0.4.28.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0649c10e1657f5a0c5447301c0c3c367343069159b3bb5452ae7ef344dc63805 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0649c10e1657f5a0c5447301c0c3c367343069159b3bb5452ae7ef344dc63805 Please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo about debuginfo packaging. -- 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=KdqhexjdQQ&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review