https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971244 --- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> --- 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. [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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 306 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/review/971244-adevs/licensecheck.txt In the source code there are LGPLv2+, but the SPEC has GPLv2+ [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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]: 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). Maven: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. You could do it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. I tried only to run the included tests, but they don't compile: g++ -fopenmp -g -pedantic -Wall -I../include atomic_test.cpp In file included from ../include/adevs.h:30:0, from atomic_test.cpp:3: ../include/adevs_simulator.h: In instantiation of ‘void adevs::Simulator<X, T>::exec_event(adevs::Atomic<X, T>*, bool, T) [with X = char; T = double]’: ../include/adevs_simulator.h:338:3: required from ‘void adevs::Simulator<X, T>::computeNextState(adevs::Bag<adevs::Event<X, T> >&, T) [with X = char; T = double]’ atomic_test.cpp:118:32: required from here ../include/adevs_simulator.h:620:2: error: ‘notify_state_listeners’ was not declared in this scope, and no declarations were found by argument-dependent lookup at the point of instantiation [-fpermissive] ../include/adevs_simulator.h:620:2: note: declarations in dependent base ‘adevs::AbstractSimulator<char, double>’ are not found by unqualified lookup ../include/adevs_simulator.h:620:2: note: use ‘this->notify_state_listeners’ instead make: *** [atomic] Error 1 [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. Patch is not justified by comment, but it's purpose is clear. I think you could improve it a bit (i.e. conditionalize the modelica) and get it upstream. Also you don't need to comment out the OPTFLAG, just run 'make OPTFLAG=', the same for java, so you could stay more close to the upstream. [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. You could run the tests. [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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Java: [-]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: adevs subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually [-]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== 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: adevs-2.6-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm adevs-devel-2.6-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm adevs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dynDEVS -> dynasty adevs-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dynDEVS -> dynasty adevs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/object_pool.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_simulator.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_abstract_simulator.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_simpledigraph.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_event_listener.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_lp_graph.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_poly.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_msg_manager.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_lp.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_par_simulator.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_time.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_exception.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_cellspace.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_message_q.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_sched.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_bag.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_set.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_models.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_lp_no_omp.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_wrapper.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_lp_omp.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_digraph.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_rand.h 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 24 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint adevs-devel adevs adevs-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dynDEVS -> dynasty adevs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/object_pool.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_simulator.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_abstract_simulator.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_simpledigraph.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_event_listener.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_lp_graph.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_poly.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_msg_manager.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_lp.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_par_simulator.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_time.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_exception.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_cellspace.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_message_q.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_sched.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_bag.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_set.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_models.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_lp_no_omp.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_wrapper.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_lp_omp.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_digraph.h adevs-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/adevs/adevs_rand.h adevs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dynDEVS -> dynasty 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 24 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Jar and class files in source ----------------------------- ./adevs-2.6/examples/java_life/CellSpace.class ./adevs-2.6/examples/java_life/Display.class ./adevs-2.6/examples/java_life/Life.class ./adevs-2.6/examples/java_life/Cell.class Requires -------- adevs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): adevs(x86-64) libadevs.so.2()(64bit) adevs (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) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- adevs-devel: adevs-devel adevs-devel(x86-64) adevs: adevs adevs(x86-64) libadevs.so.2()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.ornl.gov/~1qn/adevs/adevs.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cedec6d73e0749a97f7f5cbc42aba01be06ae67aa40ab55e9178e700433fc069 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cedec6d73e0749a97f7f5cbc42aba01be06ae67aa40ab55e9178e700433fc069 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 971244 More comments: CR + LF line ends in some files, e.g.: /src/Makefile and more Please package doc and examples. Could you run the tests? There should be 'formalisms' instead of 'formalism' in the description as upstream has. You could write in the description of the development package that it could be used for development or something similar. I think it is not good to have there the same description as the base package has. You can add one more sentence to the desription (copy from the upstream description). Why openmp is not used? I think it can bring some performance gain and should be generally harmless. Please do not mix macros and variables, i.e. $RPM_OPT_FLAGS and e.g. %{buildroot}. This is not against guidelines (IIRC), but you could be consistent, i.e. use %{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. Please report the incorrect FSF address upstream. You could also package java (if you want :). There is various bundled js code in /docs/api/jquery.js under various licenses that doesn't seem to be compatible with LGPLv2+ (this is currently not packaged, but could be as the doc). -- 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=6LuxMMGlVA&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review