https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040027 Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - Minor note - go ahead and pass CXXFLAGS to scons in %check. - Drop rm -rf %{_buildroot} in %install, not needed - You generally want to use %global instead of %define, but this also would work: scons \ %if %{with static_libs} install \ %else install-shared \ %endif CXXFLAGS="%{optflags}" \ libsuffix=%{_lib} \ prefix=%{_prefix} \ DESTDIR=%{buildroot} \ VERSION="%{version}" - You are not actually running any tests in %check, this fixes: %check scons run_tests ./run_tests --list | tr -d '<' | xargs ./run_tests ===== 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/double- conversion-2.0.0/1040027-double-conversion/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 4 files. [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 attachment). [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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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 ===== 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 attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in double- conversion-static [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. [x]: 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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define target install, %define target install-shared [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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: double-conversion-2.0.0-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm double-conversion-devel-2.0.0-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm double-conversion-static-2.0.0-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm double-conversion-2.0.0-2.fc19.src.rpm double-conversion-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US src -> arc, sec, sic double-conversion-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cctest -> cutest, cc test, cc-test double-conversion-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation double-conversion-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation double-conversion.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://double-conversion.googlecode.com/files/double-conversion-2.0.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint double-conversion double-conversion-devel double-conversion-static double-conversion.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libdouble-conversion.so.2.0.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 double-conversion-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US src -> arc, sec, sic double-conversion-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cctest -> cutest, cc test, cc-test double-conversion-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation double-conversion-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- double-conversion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) double-conversion-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): double-conversion(x86-64) libdouble-conversion.so.2()(64bit) double-conversion-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): double-conversion-devel(x86-64) Provides -------- double-conversion: double-conversion double-conversion(x86-64) libdouble-conversion.so.2()(64bit) double-conversion-devel: double-conversion-devel double-conversion-devel(x86-64) double-conversion-static: double-conversion-static double-conversion-static(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://double-conversion.googlecode.com/files/double-conversion-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 045308f23e44ac65a2830bd425cd8f01a020562bd8536f72c8df6fd82a03ded2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 045308f23e44ac65a2830bd425cd8f01a020562bd8536f72c8df6fd82a03ded2 Using local file /export/home/orion/redhat/double-conversion-2.0.0/SConstruct as upstream file:///export/home/orion/redhat/double-conversion-2.0.0/SConstruct : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9942448f73d1f73e4df02267b1db1020ccc0a0ded6a9f3f2a925fc331145f890 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9942448f73d1f73e4df02267b1db1020ccc0a0ded6a9f3f2a925fc331145f890 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1040027 Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review