https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #11 from Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Still two minor issues. You can fix on SCM-import :) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package must own all directories that it creates. See in report below. - Proper License-breakdown. See in report below. ===== 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. 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. ---> yum provides */$srcfile doesn't report any file to be provided from another package. Nothing bundled, I think. [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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> two small issues: License and owned-dirs need fix on SCM-import [!]: 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". 125 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/licensecheck.txt ---> My bad... You should drop BSD and GPLv2+ First is from testsuite and latter from included libtool But you need to keep MIT; it's from sources [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. ---> devel doesn't own '%{_datadir}/aclocal' change '%{_datadir}/aclocal/*' to '%{_datadir}/aclocal' and all is fine. It's common on 28 other devel-pkgs to own this dir, See: `yum provides */aclocal/` [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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: [-]: 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). [x]: 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. [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. ===== 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: SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc2.fc20.x86_64.rpm SDL2-devel-2.0.0-1.rc2.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-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdl2-config 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint SDL2-devel SDL2 SDL2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdl2-config SDL2.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libSDL2-2.0.so.0.0.0 _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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 (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: 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 : 0cd5b73f8d2d723cfdad894df757f378ab84779f49f1c9f7f33059eef201ba48 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0cd5b73f8d2d723cfdad894df757f378ab84779f49f1c9f7f33059eef201ba48 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 ##### Everything else is fine here. Please fix the issues on SCM-import. Утвержденных! ;) APPROVED! -- 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=m9hzoeELms&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review