https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Björn Esser from comment #1) > 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? http://www.libsdl.org/tmp/download-2.0.php SDL version 2.0.0 (stable) > > ##### > > 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. Really. He updates release tar.gz w/o changes in version. WTF? > > - 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 fixed > > > ===== 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 fixed > > [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? yes. we should to support SDL and SDL2 simultaneously > > [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. for check we should to have installed SDL2, but in chroot we don't have it > > [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. new spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2.spec new SRPM:http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc1.fc19.src.rpm koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5676929 -- 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=EGTMKOOIyv&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review