https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060909 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Hrozek <jhrozek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages ---> False positive. This is understandable given the libraries are supposed to be dlopened - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/remote/jhrozek/rpmbuild/SRPMS/socket_wrapper/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL ---> This needs to be fixed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/pkgconfig(pkgconfig), /usr/lib64/cmake(cmake) ----> This allows the package to be installed even without pkgconfig or cmake [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. ----> The %cmake macro expands well [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed ----> This is OK [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package ----> This is a special package in this respect [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. [N/A]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [N/A]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [N/A]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [N/A]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [N/A]: 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]: 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]: 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 Rpmlint ------- Checking: libsocket_wrapper-1.0.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm socket_wrapper-1.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so.0.0.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/socket_wrapper.pc libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so socket_wrapper.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni socket_wrapper.src: W: file-size-mismatch socket_wrapper-1.0.0.tar.gz = 37599, https://ftp.samba.org/pub/cwrap/socket_wrapper-1.0.0.tar.gz = 294751 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libsocket_wrapper libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unix -> UNIX, Unix, uni libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so.0.0.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/socket_wrapper.pc libsocket_wrapper.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- libsocket_wrapper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig /usr/bin/pkg-config libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libsocket_wrapper.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libsocket_wrapper: libsocket_wrapper libsocket_wrapper(x86-64) libsocket_wrapper.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(socket_wrapper) Unversioned so-files -------------------- libsocket_wrapper: /usr/lib64/libsocket_wrapper.so Source checksums ---------------- https://ftp.samba.org/pub/cwrap/socket_wrapper-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 68e956c0e42a7fc06db3b860cbc7e611003159d8b459c2b3069dcd73ebe71bfc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 04e9edf59df928ebf86837df5b19f90406d46c2a93cd29860508bf6875b7e0c4 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n socket_wrapper-1.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, 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