https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877275 --- Comment #7 from Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Review revealed: BLOCKERS: * pdfsets-minimal && pdfsets-minimal ---> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} \ != \ Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} NON-BLOCKERS: * incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/lhapdf-5.8.9/COPYING Ask upstream to update to new revision of GPLv2+-License. * el5 legacy-stuff ( RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTION ) I'd start using conditionals or expansions for el5-lagacy in spec-files like these examples: %{?el5:BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}- \ %{release}-XXXXXX)} ... %install %if 0%{?el5} make install DESTDIR="%{buildroot}" %else %make_install %endif ... %clean %{?el5:rm -rf "%{buildroot}"} for the following reasons: - Stuff only needed for el5 will be ommited on other dists. - The reviewer can see clearly you are going to pkg for el5, too. - The reviewer sees you are familiar with pkg-guidelines and the needed legacy-exceptions for el5. - You won't run into possible trouble, e.g. FTBFS, when someday these legacy-needs are forbidden to be in spec-file and will cause mock/rpmbuild-errors. Fix the BLOCKERS (and, on your oppinion, apply recommendations) and I'll give fedora-review(+). The Rest is fine: 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. [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. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lhapdf- pdfsets-minimal , lhapdf-doc [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 114 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/877275-lhapdf/licensecheck.txt [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. [!]: 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. [x]: %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-5.8.9-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm lhapdf-devel-5.8.9-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal-5.8.9-2.fc20.noarch.rpm lhapdf-doc-5.8.9-2.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: 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. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- lhapdf-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash lhapdf(x86-64) libLHAPDF.so.0()(64bit) lhapdf-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lhapdf 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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) lhapdf-pdfsets-minimal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lhapdf 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 -- 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=HRse4iWqbC&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review