https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070702 Honza Horak <hhorak@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #13 from Honza Horak <hhorak@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - As already mentioned above, package name should correspond with the project name, which is lmdb, not liblmdb. - As mentioned in comment #9, syncing with Debian/OpenSUSE library versioning seems like a good idea to me. It seems the other distros use liblmdb.so.0.0.0, which is what we should use as well then. - Binaries should be detached from the library file, since for proper library dependency only the library is necessary and the binaries are not. This may be also significant on multilib systems, in case there is some non-ELF file in the /usr/bin in the future. So I guess we should be prepared for that. This can be solved by introducing lmdb-libs subpackage, that would include only the library (and necessary doc -- license, ...) - Generated documentation can introduce file conflicts on multilib systems, which means 32bit and 64bit -devel packages could not be co-installable. Therefore the generated doc may be moved to a separate package and made noarch. That would also solve the next issue: - Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2181120 bytes in /usr/share - The macro %{version} should be changed to %%{version} in the comment in the spec file - The following lines seem to be not necessary to me in the %install section, since they only remove files from the build directory: rm -f Doxyfile rm -rf man # Doxygen generated manpages ===== 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: "ISC", "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/hhorak/tmp/lmdb/liblmdb/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. - However, as already mentioned above, imho package name should correspond with the project name, which is lmdb, not liblmdb. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. - However, generated documentation can introduce file conflicts on multilib systems, which means 32bit and 64bit -devel packages could not be co-installable. Therefore the generated doc may be moved to a separate package and made noarch. [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]: 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. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). - The macro %{version} should be changed to %%{version} in the comment. - Issue with Source0 is justified [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 ===== 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). [?]: 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. - All changes to Makefile done by patches seem to be generic enough to be accepted upstream, so it makes sense to report bugs for them and mention the links in the patches. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2181120 bytes in /usr/share - As mentioned above, moving the docs to a separate package is also good idea to make the package multilib clean. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. - The macro %{version} should be changed to %%{version} in the comment. - Issue with Source0 is justified Rpmlint ------- Checking: liblmdb-0.9.11-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm liblmdb-devel-0.9.11-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm liblmdb-0.9.11-1.fc20.src.rpm liblmdb.src:9: W: macro-in-comment %{version} liblmdb.src: W: invalid-url Source0: liblmdb-0.9.11.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint liblmdb liblmdb-devel 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- liblmdb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) liblmdb.so.0.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) liblmdb-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): liblmdb(x86-64) liblmdb.so.0.1()(64bit) Provides -------- liblmdb: liblmdb liblmdb(x86-64) liblmdb.so.0.1()(64bit) liblmdb-devel: liblmdb-devel liblmdb-devel(x86-64) -- 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