https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029227 --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- The main portion of the package looks fine (modulo testing of functionality beyond the test suite, as I'm not versed in CVC4) The Java bindings, however, does not follow the JNI guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Packaging_JAR_files_that_use_JNI Multilib is basically not supported for JNI subpackages, and so the SO files should be placed in %{_jnidir} (%{_prefix}/lib/java). The package is also flagged for not having -javadoc, but as the Java source files do not have headers that could be extracted for this, I think we can omit that. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to get additional checks ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. NOTE: see the Java section below for an issue with JNI .sos [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. 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSL (v1.0)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause)". 723 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/sources/fedora/to- review/1029227-cvc4/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [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 51200 bytes in 6 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines see Java section [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]: 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 Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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 cvc4-devel , cvc4-doc , cvc4-libs , cvc4-java [?]: Package functions as described. Test suite passes, but I have not tested the program itself [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [-]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: cvc4 subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [!]: JNI guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Packaging_JAR_files_that_use_JNI Use %{_jnidir} instead of %{_libdir}/java -- multilib is not supported for Java and %{_prefix}/lib64/java is going away per the guidelines ===== 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: cvc4-1.3-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm cvc4-devel-1.3-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm cvc4-doc-1.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm cvc4-libs-1.3-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm cvc4-java-1.3-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm cvc4-1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm cvc4.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) prover -> prove, rover, proverb cvc4.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prover -> prove, rover, proverb cvc4.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US satisfiability -> insatiability, advisability cvc4.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dually -> dully, dally, dual cvc4-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) prover -> prove, rover, proverb cvc4-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prover -> prove, rover, proverb cvc4-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcvc4.so.2.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 cvc4-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation cvc4-java.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/cvc4/libcvc4jni.so cvc4.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) prover -> prove, rover, proverb cvc4.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prover -> prove, rover, proverb cvc4.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US satisfiability -> insatiability, advisability cvc4.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dually -> dully, dally, dual cvc4.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: %{name}-doxygen.patch 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint cvc4-java cvc4 cvc4-devel cvc4-libs cvc4-doc cvc4-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation cvc4-java.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/cvc4/libcvc4jni.so cvc4.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) prover -> prove, rover, proverb cvc4.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prover -> prove, rover, proverb cvc4.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US satisfiability -> insatiability, advisability cvc4.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dually -> dully, dally, dual cvc4-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) prover -> prove, rover, proverb cvc4-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prover -> prove, rover, proverb cvc4-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcvc4.so.2.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- cvc4-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cvc4-libs(x86-64) java-headless jpackage-utils ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcvc4.so.2()(64bit) libcvc4jni.so.2()(64bit) libcvc4parser.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtcmalloc.so.4()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) cvc4 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cvc4-libs(x86-64) lfsc libboost_system.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libboost_thread.so.1.54.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcvc4.so.2()(64bit) libcvc4parser.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libgmpxx.so.4()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libprofiler.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libreadline.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtcmalloc.so.4()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) cvc4-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cvc4-libs(x86-64) libcvc4.so.2()(64bit) libcvc4parser.so.2()(64bit) cvc4-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/sbin/ldconfig ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libantlr3c.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcvc4.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libglpk.so.36()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtcmalloc.so.4()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) cvc4-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- cvc4-java: cvc4-java cvc4-java(x86-64) libcvc4jni.so.2()(64bit) cvc4: cvc4 cvc4(x86-64) cvc4-devel: cvc4-devel cvc4-devel(x86-64) cvc4-libs: cvc4-libs cvc4-libs(x86-64) libcvc4.so.2()(64bit) libcvc4parser.so.2()(64bit) cvc4-doc: cvc4-doc Unversioned so-files -------------------- cvc4-java: /usr/lib64/cvc4/libcvc4jni.so Source checksums ---------------- http://cvc4.cs.nyu.edu/builds/src/cvc4-1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8013300450130d10e51c8167fcd52eb253404e49524931506e51e1d503d6e3f9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8013300450130d10e51c8167fcd52eb253404e49524931506e51e1d503d6e3f9 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1029227 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, 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