https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- I'll take this. ##### Have CC'ed Petr Pisar (ppisar), because he's the maintainer of "old" SDL-branch. Some colab might be helpful on this, I think. SDL2 is in RC state itm. Do you ITP SDL_{image,mixer}2 as well? ##### He goes the first review-run. Issues found. :( ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation ---> What??? Can't find anything java-related in the pkg... Must be a bug in f-r, then. I'll ignore this for now. - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL ---> rebuild srpm, plz. - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in SDL2-devel, SDL2-static See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage ---> false-positive (possible bug), are present in arched-form - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java ---> nothing java-releated here, see above - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation ---> nothing java-releated here, see above - all files in %doc have wrong end-of-line encoding See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding ---> use sed -i -e's!\r!!g' $file on them, please ===== 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]: 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. [x]: Static libraries in -static 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. [?]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in SDL2-static ---> is solved by requires devel-subpkg [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> issues present [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 124 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/licensecheck.txt ---> License tag should be zlib and BSD and GPLv2+ and MIT [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. [?]: 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. ---> This will be co-existing with "old" SDL? [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 20480 bytes in 7 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]: 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]: 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). What are these lines about in here? Nothing java-related in src... See comments above. Java: [-]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [-]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== 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). [?]: 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. [-]: 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. ---> There is a tests-dir in src. Check if theres a check/test target in Makefile, please. [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]: 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. WTF??? See above. Java: [-]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: SDL2 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: SDL2-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm SDL2-devel-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm SDL2-static-2.0.0-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm SDL2.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSDL2-2.0.so.0.0.0 _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/BUGS.txt SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/COPYING.txt SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/CREDITS.txt SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/README-SDL.txt SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/TODO.txt SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/README.txt SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/WhatsNew.txt SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdl2-config SDL2-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint SDL2-devel SDL2-static SDL2 SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/TODO.txt SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/README.txt SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2-devel/WhatsNew.txt SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdl2-config SDL2-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation SDL2.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSDL2-2.0.so.0.0.0 _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/BUGS.txt SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/COPYING.txt SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/CREDITS.txt SDL2.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/SDL2/README-SDL.txt 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- SDL2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/pkg-config SDL2(x86-64) alsa-lib-devel libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libX11-devel libXScrnSaver-devel libXext-devel libXi-devel libXrandr-devel libXrender-devel mesa-libEGL-devel mesa-libGL-devel mesa-libGLES-devel mesa-libGLU-devel SDL2-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): SDL2-devel(x86-64) SDL2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- SDL2-devel: SDL2-devel SDL2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(sdl2) SDL2-static: SDL2-static SDL2-static(x86-64) SDL2: SDL2 SDL2(x86-64) libSDL2-2.0.so.0()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.libsdl.org/tmp/release/SDL2-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d701c1899b3de1e697c988e2a38327dfa00bc43fc430e9645d061425fa541c9f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0cd5b73f8d2d723cfdad894df757f378ab84779f49f1c9f7f33059eef201ba48 diff -r also reports differences 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 989752 ##### Please fix the issues and I' take another run on it then. I'll report a bug against f-r. -- 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=YywKEw2Wa2&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review