https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977208 Roman Mohr <roman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #766491|0 |1 is obsolete| | Attachment #767176| |review? Flags| | --- Comment #7 from Roman Mohr <roman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Created attachment 767176 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=767176&action=edit improved spec file There are some smaller Issues, see attached report. Most of them are fixed in the attachment. 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. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. ---> Your name is missing in the changelog headlines. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> Source0 references the head of a git branch and not a tag, so please add a stable link to a commit instead of a link to HEAD. See the attached patch for a solution. Thats also the reason why the checksums of the sources do not match. [!]: 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. ---> I would suggest to add this to %files: %doc CHANGELOG CONTRIBUTING.md README.md docs/DOCUMENTATION.txt docs/LICENSE.md docs/LICENSE.txt [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 901 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/roman/rpmbuild/REVIEWS/php-phalcon/licensecheck.txt ---> MIT license is missing [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [-]: 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. ---> next on my list [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. ---> There are a lot of unit tests but they are only applicable if compiled from the development branch. No blocker. [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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: php-phalcon-1.2.0-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm php-phalcon.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/php/modules/phalcon.so phalcon.so()(64bit) php-phalcon.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint php-phalcon php-phalcon.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/php/modules/phalcon.so phalcon.so()(64bit) php-phalcon.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- php-phalcon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(php-phalcon) libc.so.6()(64bit) php(api) php(zend-abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- php-phalcon: config(php-phalcon) phalcon.so()(64bit) php-phalcon php-phalcon(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- php-phalcon: /usr/lib64/php/modules/phalcon.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/phalcon/cphalcon/archive/1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7317a7bdea1b372c4968a8c4f258ff126b9d3e73d8f962c35eaec54957cb048f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a2adcbb47fb8d76108e0a870241aaec068193a790badc22eb1a9588f53e798d1 diff -r also reports differences 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 -rn php-phalcon -- 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=mY5rhqaLTy&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review