[Bug 877275] Review Request: lhapdf - Les Houches Accord PDF Interface

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877275

Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #3 from Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> ---
### rpmlint shows:

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: lhapdf-5.8.9-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          lhapdf-devel-5.8.9-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal-5.8.9-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          lhapdf-doc-5.8.9-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
lhapdf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pion -> pin, ion, pinon
lhapdf.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/lhapdf-5.8.9/COPYING
lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getdata
-> get data, get-data, vegetate
lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

incorrect-fsf-address --> Consider contacting upstream and ask for including
lastest GPLv2-revision. (non-blocker, nice to have in next version...)


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint lhapdf-devel lhapdf-doc lhapdf lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal
lhapdf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pion -> pin, ion, pinon
lhapdf.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libLHAPDF.so.0.0.0
/lib64/libquadmath.so.0
lhapdf.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/lhapdf-5.8.9/COPYING
lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getdata
-> get data, get-data, vegetate
lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

unused-direct-shlib-dependency on libquadmath.so.0 --> adding some sed-magic as
seen on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency
in spec-file might help.


### looking over spec-file:

 Patch2:        %{name}-fix-typo.patch
 Patch3:        %{name}-path-max.patch

-BuildRoot:    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 BuildRequires:    octave-devel
 BuildRequires:    ncurses-devel

BuildRoot is obsoleted and only needed for EPEL <= 5. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview

 %install
-rm -rf %{buildroot}
-make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
+%make_install

`%make_install` handles this like DESTDIR itself. `rm -rf %{buildroot}` in
%install (%clean as well) is obsoleted on F >= 10 && EPEL >= 6

Upstream Makefile seems to provide a check-target. Why don't you use it?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25check_section

 %build
 ...

+%check
+make check
+
 %install


### Full review report:


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== 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.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lhapdf-
     devel , lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal , lhapdf-doc
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 133120 bytes in 23 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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).

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[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: lhapdf-5.8.9-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          lhapdf-devel-5.8.9-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
          lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal-5.8.9-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          lhapdf-doc-5.8.9-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
lhapdf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pion -> pin, ion, pinon
lhapdf.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/lhapdf-5.8.9/COPYING
lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getdata
-> get data, get-data, vegetate
lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint lhapdf-devel lhapdf-doc lhapdf lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal
lhapdf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pion -> pin, ion, pinon
lhapdf.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libLHAPDF.so.0.0.0
/lib64/libquadmath.so.0
lhapdf.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/lhapdf-5.8.9/COPYING
lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getdata
-> get data, get-data, vegetate
lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
lhapdf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/env
    lhapdf
    libLHAPDF.so.0()(64bit)

lhapdf-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

lhapdf (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)
    libgfortran.so.3()(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit)
    libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libquadmath.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
lhapdf-devel:
    lhapdf-devel
    lhapdf-devel(x86-64)

lhapdf-doc:
    lhapdf-doc

lhapdf:
    lhapdf
    lhapdf(x86-64)
    libLHAPDF.so.0()(64bit)

lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal:
    lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.hepforge.org/archive/lhapdf/pdfsets/current/cteq6ll.LHpdf :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
a3c6bd1ebea30f75fa23fa94922ba281872a66e59465b61f73a0f3629c2b5c03
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a3c6bd1ebea30f75fa23fa94922ba281872a66e59465b61f73a0f3629c2b5c03
http://www.hepforge.org/archive/lhapdf/pdfsets/current/cteq61.LHgrid :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
d384a9edd4534d1ca70ea940234fd0286229337083ef5869edf432bac6083dfe
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
d384a9edd4534d1ca70ea940234fd0286229337083ef5869edf432bac6083dfe
http://www.hepforge.org/archive/lhapdf/lhapdf-5.8.9.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
b90a83512fc5f51e4cd419f1e79ad6e6fcd0e19636bb07464e41f47ee0509d3c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
b90a83512fc5f51e4cd419f1e79ad6e6fcd0e19636bb07464e41f47ee0509d3c
http://www.hepforge.org/archive/lhapdf/pdfsets/current/cteq5l.LHgrid :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
7fa7fa00a85e90c1464dcad2f86e71af3efaad85332d9d7cacdfbd365d9aedf7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
7fa7fa00a85e90c1464dcad2f86e71af3efaad85332d9d7cacdfbd365d9aedf7
http://www.hepforge.org/archive/lhapdf/pdfsets/current/MRST2001nlo.LHgrid :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
7ec031afa2bd254b95b66b3058291365091f58b48e4be2b368e61fc170c51d58
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
7ec031afa2bd254b95b66b3058291365091f58b48e4be2b368e61fc170c51d58
http://www.hepforge.org/archive/lhapdf/pdfsets/current/CT10.LHgrid :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
edd17727b3fbb93f2f1153f219ace7dc18d52eacae27d37a7e123ca4552d2b80
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
edd17727b3fbb93f2f1153f219ace7dc18d52eacae27d37a7e123ca4552d2b80
http://www.hepforge.org/archive/lhapdf/pdfsets/current/GRV98nlo.LHgrid :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
78e7b133ac1f1d5576aa688f98adb8b6e29feb15cbb58556c860cb7e183da647
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
78e7b133ac1f1d5576aa688f98adb8b6e29feb15cbb58556c860cb7e183da647


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 877275


Fix spec-file and issue with unused-direct-shlib-dependency and I'll give
fedora-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=DS6qv4zQ4R&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]