https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094038 --- Comment #6 from Christian Dersch <chrisdersch@xxxxxxxxx> --- Review done, looks fine :) Greetings, Christian Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - EPEL5: Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. - EPEL5: Package does run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmbuild/1094038-expat21/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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 174080 bytes in 11 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]: 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]: 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 [x]: EPEL5 requires explicit %clean with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Missing buildroot (required for EPEL5) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [-]: 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 expat21-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools ==> Should be ok [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: expat21-2.1.0-1.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm expat21-devel-2.1.0-1.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm expat21-2.1.0-1.el5.centos.src.rpm expat21.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1.0-1 ['2.1.0-1.el5.centos', '2.1.0-1.centos'] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint expat21-devel expat21 rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unsupported hash version: 9 error: cannot open Packages index using db3 - Invalid argument (22) error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unsupported hash version: 9 error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unsupported hash version: 9 error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm (none): E: error while reading expat21-devel: rpmdb open failed rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unsupported hash version: 9 error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm (none): E: error while reading expat21: rpmdb open failed 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- expat21-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): expat21 libexpat21.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig expat21 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libexpat21.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- expat21-devel: expat-devel expat21-devel pkgconfig(expat21) expat21: expat expat21 libexpat21.so.1()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/expat/expat-2.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 823705472f816df21c8f6aa026dd162b280806838bb55b3432b0fb1fcca7eb86 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 823705472f816df21c8f6aa026dd162b280806838bb55b3432b0fb1fcca7eb86 AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: expat-2.1.0/configure.in:57 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -D EPEL5=1 -m epel-5-x86_64 -b 1094038 Buildroot used: epel-5-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, 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