https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013037 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- I will take this review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10557440 bytes in 163 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation This warning is because the documentation ends up in BOTH the main package and the -doc subpackage. You will need to add %exclude lines to both the main %files and %files doc to make sure each file goes into only one of the two packages. - This is extremely minor, but the jinja patch applies with offsets: patching file Makefile.in Hunk #3 succeeded at 1209 (offset 48 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 1262 (offset 48 lines). and there is also a typo in the %patch0 application: jijna2 -> jinja2 - On the subject of bundled libraries, I see that you removed jinja2, but what about the rest of the code under vendor/common? What is its status? - Should jinja2 be a Requires? - I am confused by the python code. It is only present in the -devel package. I don't know what it does, so this is probably just my ignorance speaking, but are you sure it is never needed at runtime? - There is no Requires on an appropriate python abi. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Multiple_Python_Runtimes - There is no BR on an appropriate version of python-devel. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires - Consider adding a %check script ===== 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 239 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/1013037-otf2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 below). [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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]: 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python See comment about multiple python runtimes above [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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 below). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in otf2-doc [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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. [?]: 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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 10752000 bytes in /usr/share otf2-1.2.1-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm:10557440 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see below). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: otf2-1.2.1-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm otf2-devel-1.2.1-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm otf2-doc-1.2.1-2.fc21.noarch.rpm otf2-1.2.1-2.fc21.src.rpm otf2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable, callable, calculable otf2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary otf2-print otf2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary otf2-snapshots otf2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary otf2-marker otf2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation otf2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary otf2-config otf2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary otf2-template otf2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable, callable, calculable otf2.src:37: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint otf2-doc otf2 otf2-devel otf2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable, callable, calculable otf2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary otf2-print otf2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary otf2-snapshots otf2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary otf2-marker otf2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation otf2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary otf2-config otf2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary otf2-template 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- otf2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): otf2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libotf2.so.3()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) otf2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libotf2.so.3()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) otf2(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- otf2-doc: otf2-doc otf2: libotf2.so.3()(64bit) otf2 otf2(x86-64) otf2-devel: otf2-devel otf2-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.vi-hps.org/upload/packages/otf2/otf2-1.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1db9fb0789de4a9c3c96042495e4212a22cb581f734a1593813adaf84f2288e4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1db9fb0789de4a9c3c96042495e4212a22cb581f734a1593813adaf84f2288e4 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1013037 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG -- 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