https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069556 Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros - There are some rpmlint warnings below zeromq4-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib zeromq4.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libzmq.so.3.1.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 Maybe it's worth to investigate and at least comment on these. Comments: ========= As mentinoned above it's a little odd how we are packaging renaming from zeromq3 -> 4 here despite the fact that there is no .so bump here. Is another option to update the existing zeromq package to this one and add a compat package for runtime. Indeed I think the decision is yours though. ===== 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. We presume that the exceptions were already approved for the existing zeromq packages. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. [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. [x]: 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. [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 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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [-]: %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]: 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]: 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 ===== [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: zeromq4-4.0.4-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm zeromq4-devel-4.0.4-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm zeromq4-4.0.4-1.fc20.src.rpm zeromq4.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary curve_keygen zeromq4-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint zeromq4-devel zeromq4 zeromq4-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib zeromq4.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libzmq.so.3.1.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 zeromq4.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary curve_keygen 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- zeromq4-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libzmq.so.3()(64bit) zeromq4(x86-64) zeromq4 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpgm-5.2.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libsodium.so.4()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libzmq.so.3()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- zeromq4-devel: pkgconfig(libzmq) zeromq3-devel zeromq4-devel zeromq4-devel(x86-64) zeromq4: libzmq.so.3()(64bit) zeromq3 zeromq4 zeromq4(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://download.zeromq.org/zeromq-4.0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1ef71d46e94f33e27dd5a1661ed626cd39be4d2d6967792a275040e34457d399 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1ef71d46e94f33e27dd5a1661ed626cd39be4d2d6967792a275040e34457d399 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1069556 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