https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988997 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Scott Schmit from comment #5) > Not saying "open the floodgates!" but ecc is no longer banned outright: bug > 319901. CC'ing Tom. As I said already this application doesn't use ECC algorithms, and has nothing to do with OpenSSL. Bitcoin mining is different from actual bitcoin usage. Mining is just sha256 generation and comparison. Just to stop further confusing I'm going to REVIEW this: Koji scratchbuild for F-19 (just because building for F-19 is tenfold faster than for branches with ARM enabled) * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6062348 Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is NOT silent work ~/Desktop: rpmlint bfgminer-* bfgminer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti bfgminer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fanspeed -> fan speed, fan-speed, fans peed bfgminer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitcoin -> bit coin, bit-coin, bitchiness ^^^ False positives. Not a blocker. bfgminer.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ^^^ Please fix that by adding date and version here before uploading to a git repository. Not a blocker. bfgminer.src:50: W: macro-in-comment %dir bfgminer.src:50: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} bfgminer.src:56: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir} bfgminer.src:56: W: macro-in-comment %{name} ^^^ Either remove commented lines or escape them with additional percent sign. Not a blocker. bfgminer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti bfgminer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fanspeed -> fan speed, fan-speed, fans peed bfgminer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitcoin -> bit coin, bit-coin, bitchiness ^^^ Likewise, false positives. Not a blocker. bfgminer.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ^^^ Likewise, fix that by adding date and version here before uploading to a git repository. Not a blocker. bfgminer.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/doc/bfgminer-3.1.3/api-example.o ^^^ Please remove this. That's a blocker. bfgminer.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/bfgminer ['$ORIGIN/libblkmaker/.libs'] ^^^ rpath issue. Please fix it. That's a blocker. bfgminer.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libblkmaker_jansson-0.1.so.0.4.0 bfgminer.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libblkmaker_jansson-0.1.so.0.4.0 bfgminer.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libblkmaker-0.1.so.0.4.0 bfgminer.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libblkmaker-0.1.so.0.4.0 ^^^ Please, call ldconfig where necessary. That's a blocker. bfgminer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bitforce-firmware-flash bfgminer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bfgminer bfgminer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bfgminer-rpc ^^^ Sad truth. These binaries just doesn't have a corresponding man-page. Not a blocker. bfgminer-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog bfgminer-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ^^^ Fix that by adding date and version here before uploading to a git repository. Not a blocker. bfgminer-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ^^^ That was intended - this sub-package doesn't have any docs. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 18 warnings. work ~/Desktop: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. - The package DOESN'T fully conform to the Packaging Guidelines. See my notes above. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv3 exactly). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. - The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, so it MUST call ldconfig in %post and %postun. See my notes regarding ldconfig above. +/- The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. Well, to be honest it does contains some sources from the libraries unknown to me within the ADL, CL, lib directories which *should* be unbundled but I'm not insisting on doing it right now. However that would be great to re-use system-wide opencl-headers package instead of shipped CL. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. - The package MUST own all directories that it creates. Hewever I see that /usr/share/bfgminer directory left unowned. Please add it back (it seems that you accidentally commented it out) maybe with %dir mark to prevent files listing twice. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. See above note regarding directories. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. Note it contains firmware blobs in the bitstreams/ directory. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package and necessary runtime requirement picked up automatically. + The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a -devel package. - The -devel package MUST require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. OK, almost there. Please fix/comment issues mentioned above and I'll continue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review