https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548 --- Comment #1 from František Dvořák <valtri@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - using obsolete m4 macros in upstream (https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools) It could be worth to let upstream know about it, and/or patch it locally. But it is just extra check and it is not required to fix that. - deleting of the .la files would be better written: (but that's only cosmetic) find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -delete - README.* files are not relevant for the final binary package and should be removed (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation) - ./libmng-2.0.2/bcb/win32dll/libmng.dll should be deleted in %prep (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries) ===== MUST items ===== 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: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 84 files have unknown license. xGPL files are not used, the native libmng license is right IMHO. :-) [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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 184320 bytes in 22 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines See issues. [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 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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. [?]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-]: 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]: 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 is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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: mingw32-libmng-2.0.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw32-libmng-static-2.0.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-libmng-2.0.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-libmng-static-2.0.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw-libmng-2.0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm mingw32-libmng-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-libmng-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mingw64-libmng-static mingw64-libmng mingw32-libmng-static mingw32-libmng mingw64-libmng-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-libmng-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mingw64-libmng-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64-libmng mingw64-libmng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libjpeg-62.dll) mingw64(liblcms2-2.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64(zlib1.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw64-pkg-config mingw32-libmng-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32-libmng mingw32-libmng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libjpeg-62.dll) mingw32(liblcms2-2.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32(zlib1.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw32-pkg-config Provides -------- mingw64-libmng-static: mingw64-libmng-static mingw64-libmng: mingw64(libmng-2.dll) mingw64-libmng mingw32-libmng-static: mingw32-libmng-static mingw32-libmng: mingw32(libmng-2.dll) mingw32-libmng Source checksums ---------------- http://download.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/libmng/libmng-2.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4908797bb3541fb5cd8fffbe0b1513ed163509f2a4d57a78b26a96f8d1dd05a2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4908797bb3541fb5cd8fffbe0b1513ed163509f2a4d57a78b26a96f8d1dd05a2 AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libmng-2.0.2/configure.ac:40, libmng-2.0.2/makefiles/configure.ac:40 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1049548 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG ==== The first two issues are not required and it' up to you if to change anything. The "README.*" and "libmng.dll" issues should be fixed or discussed. :-) -- 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