https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579925 Robert Lightfoot <BobLfoot@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |BobLfoot@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #9 from Robert Lightfoot <BobLfoot@xxxxxxxxx> --- MUST rpmlint - fails please address malformed conditional in spec ; devel package has no documentation ; debuginfo has non-binaries in /usr/lib rpmlint /var/lib/mock/epel-7-x86_64/result/tcl-tclreadline-2.1.0-2.el7.centos.src.rpm tcl-tclreadline.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Readline -> Deadline, Headline, Breadline tcl-tclreadline.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Tk -> Tl, T, K tcl-tclreadline.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Readline -> Deadline, Headline, Breadline tcl-tclreadline.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tk -> kt, t, k tcl-tclreadline.src: W: malformed-fedora-conditional tcl-tclreadline.spec:22 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. rpmlint /var/lib/mock/epel-7-x86_64/result/tcl-tclreadline-2.1.0-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm tcl-tclreadline.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Readline -> Deadline, Headline, Breadline tcl-tclreadline.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Tk -> Tl, T, K tcl-tclreadline.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Readline -> Deadline, Headline, Breadline tcl-tclreadline.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tk -> kt, t, k tcl-tclreadline.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1.0-2 ['2.1.0-2.el7.centos', '2.1.0-2.centos'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. rpmlint /var/lib/mock/epel-7-x86_64/result/tcl-tclreadline-devel-2.1.0-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm tcl-tclreadline-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint /var/lib/mock/epel-7-x86_64/result/tcl-tclreadline-debuginfo-2.1.0-2.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. MUST Package Naming Guidelines - the tcl- requirement has been addressed and met. I find no other issue, but this is my first informal review. MUST Specfile Naming - PASS MUST Packaging Guidelines - FAIL - rpmlint issues ; debuginfo package issue No External Kernel Modules - OK No Inclusion of Pre-Built Binaries or Libraries - OK Spec Legibility - OK Architecture Support Builds for Fedora 21 - koji task 7204827 - PASS Builds for Fedora 20 - koji task 7204082 - PASS Builds for Fedora 19 - koji task 7204835 - PASS Builds for EPEL-7 - koji task 7204882 - PASS Builds for EPEL-6 - kpjo task 7204885 - PASS Builds for EPEL-5 - kpjo task 7204923 - PASS Filesystem Heirarchy Standard Compliance - OK rpmlint on installed packages <mock-chroot>[root@mythbox /]# rpmlint -i tcl-tclreadline tcl-tclreadline.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1.0-2 ['2.1.0-2.el7.centos', '2.1.0-2.centos'] The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. <mock-chroot>[root@mythbox /]# rpmlint -i tcl-tclreadline-debuginfo tcl-tclreadline-debuginfo.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. <mock-chroot>[root@mythbox /]# rpmlint -i tcl-tclreadline-devel tcl-tclreadline-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Changelog readability - OK Tag usage check - OK Packager Tag - not present GOOD Vendor Tag - not present GOOD Copyright Tag - not present GOOD License Tag used - GOOD Summary Tag does not end in period - GOOD PreReq Tag not used - GOOD Requires Tag used - GOOD Source Tag - used and resovles to full URL - GOOD BuildRequires - OK mock used and no missing build requires found Trademarks in summary or description - GOOD Documentation - No obvious irregulararities found DebugInfo - This Package is made by rpmbuild and yet not addressed in the .spec. rpmlint is unhappy with it composure so th spec needs to address this. Devel Package - Other than the missing documentation for this package the spec looks good. Library usage and linking - Can find no issues as the spec pays good attention to this Macros - are used as intended as far as reviewer can tell MUST Licensing Guidelines - PASS license is found in the COPYING file and meets esablished BSD Format. MUST license and spec file license must agree - PASS MUST docs must include license file - PASS MUST spec file uses American English - PASS MUST spec file must be legible - PASS MUST sources must match upstream source - PASS SOURCE0: sha256sum matches SOURCE1: sha256sum matches MUST compile and build on at least one architecture MUST work on architecture or exclude in spec - PASS MUST BuildRequires used -PASS MUST handle locales - UNKNOWN no %find_lang macro is present,but reviewer is unable to test this package for multiple locales so it may be okay. MUST call ldconfig in %post and %postun - PASS MUST not package system libraries - PASS MUST specify if relocatable - PASS MUST package must own all directories it creates - PASS MUST no duplicate files in %files - PASS MUST set file permissions correctly - PASS MUST consistently use macros - PASS MUST codes or permissable content - PASS MUST documentation absence does not affect usage - UNKNOWN - reviewer was not given a test case protocol and is not familiar enough to create one MUST handle static libraries in a -static package - DOES not appear to apply MUST handle devleopment linraries in a -devel package - PASS NOT a GUI Package MUST filenames in UTF-8 format - PASS SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. - PASS SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. - UNKNOWN No translations provided but not sure if this applies SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock - PASS See above was tested in mock and koji scratch build SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures - PASS See koji results above SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. - UNKNOWN The description of how it should operate is unclear to this reviewer SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. - PASS Scripts appear sanely used SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. - PASS No subpackages other than devel seen SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. - PASS No .pc files used SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. - PASS This condition appears met. SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. - PASS manpage does define the usage of libraries -- You are receiving this mail because: 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