https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 --- Comment #1 from Will Benton <willb@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for your hard work packaging this project! There are a few minor things to address before I can approve the review. Issues and notes: * Thanks for using a commit SHA to specify your source archive location. * Please replace the hard-coded /usr/lib/mono with a macro; you may define %{monodir} as /usr/lib/mono in this spec, but I am planning to get a clarification to the Mono guidelines that has an official macro (see https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/395). * You probably should require mono-core since (1) mono-core is required to use mono-cecil and (2) you place files in /usr/lib/mono/gac, which mono-core owns. These conditions are listed in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership Note that Cecil's functional dependency on mono-core is captured by its (automatically-generated) Requires at the moment, but the explicit Requires: mono-core is to ensure that you comply by the file and directory ownership guidelines even if the assemblies you depend on move to another package than the gac directory in the future. It also appears to be common practice among mono libraries to explicitly depend on mono-core. * Please file an issue upstream to get a license file included in the source tarball. * It appears that this package includes tests. Please either run them (in %check) or justify why the tests can't be run in koji with a specfile comment. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [-]: 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]: 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)", "Unknown or generated". 76 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/wibenton/devel/review /mono-cecil/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). - see explanation above [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. - see explanation above [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines - except as already mentioned [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]: 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]: 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: [!]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. - please add %check or justify why the tests can't run [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mono-cecil-0.9.5-1.20131105git8425de4.fc21.noarch.rpm mono-cecil-0.9.5-1.20131105git8425de4.fc21.src.rpm mono-cecil.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.5-1 ['0.9.5-1.20131105git8425de4.fc21', '0.9.5-1.20131105git8425de4'] mono-cecil.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mono-cecil.src:33: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/mono/gac/ mono-cecil.src:35: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib mono-cecil.src:36: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib mono-cecil.src:37: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib mono-cecil.src:38: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib mono-cecil.src:43: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/mono/gac/Mono.Cecil* mono-cecil.src:44: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/mono/Mono.Cecil* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mono-cecil mono-cecil.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.5-1 ['0.9.5-1.20131105git8425de4.fc21', '0.9.5-1.20131105git8425de4'] mono-cecil.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mono-cecil (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mono(Mono.Cecil) mono(System) mono(System.Core) mono(mscorlib) Provides -------- mono-cecil: mono(Mono.Cecil) mono(Mono.Cecil.Mdb) mono(Mono.Cecil.Pdb) mono(Mono.Cecil.Rocks) mono-cecil Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jbevain/cecil/archive/8425de4db6a6e120154ced991f1ebc8d4d79dfb5/mono-cecil-0.9.5-8425de4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f205b6b0d7efcf0358bc9a4d12a7a0debaa16061708dd8789dc55ad651291552 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f205b6b0d7efcf0358bc9a4d12a7a0debaa16061708dd8789dc55ad651291552 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n /home/wibenton/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mono-cecil-0.9.5-1.20131105git8425de4.fc19.src.rpm -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, 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