https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127173 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Flags|needinfo?(bjoern.esser@gmai |fedora-review? |l.com) | --- Comment #7 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - All of the files identify themselves as having the GPLv2+ license, except for tree.hh, which says it is covered under the GPL license, version 2 or 3. I think the license should read "GPLv2 or GPLv3", rather than just "GPLv2". That is functionally equivalent to "GPLv2+" at the moment, but would be wrong if a GPLv4 is ever released. - The license file is not installed if liborigin2-doc is installed by itself. - Please use the %license macro for the license file, instead of %doc. This only applies to Fedora 21 and Rawhide. For Fedora 19 and 20 and EPEL, continue to use %doc. - The doc package does not own %{_docdir}/name, but since it can be installed without the main package, it needs to do so. - If you look at the build log on a 64-bit system, you'll see a number of warnings that look like this: /builddir/build/BUILD/liborigin/OriginDefaultParser.cpp:307:55: warning: format '%d' expects argument of type 'int', but argument 3 has type 'std::vector<Origin::SpreadSheet>::size_type {aka long unsigned int}' [-Wformat=] fprintf(debug," nr_spreads = %d\n",speadSheets.size()); ^ This means that a 64-bit value is being pushed onto the stack, but because of the format string, printf is only going to look at 32 bits. This can cause erroneous output. Those format strings should be patched to replace "%d" with "%zu" in each case. - It looks like upstream is not prepared for %{?_smp_mflags}. I see all of the source files being compiled multiple times, and the documentation generated multiple times as well. - FORMAT is ISO-8859-5 (I think; it mentions Russian, which would be -5). Please convert it to UTF-8. - The macro %{_libdir} appears in a comment on line 51 of the spec file. Either double the % sign (%%{_libdir}) or just write "_libdir". - Please fix the mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs warning from rpmlint. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/liborigin2 [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 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 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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in liborigin2-doc [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [!]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: liborigin2-2.0.0-4.fc22.x86_64.rpm liborigin2-devel-2.0.0-4.fc22.x86_64.rpm liborigin2-doc-2.0.0-4.fc22.noarch.rpm liborigin2-2.0.0-4.fc22.src.rpm liborigin2.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/liborigin2/FORMAT liborigin2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opj2dat-2.0.0 liborigin2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib liborigin2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation liborigin2.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} liborigin2.src:18: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 18) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint liborigin2-doc liborigin2 liborigin2-devel liborigin2.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/liborigin2/FORMAT liborigin2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary opj2dat-2.0.0 liborigin2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib liborigin2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- liborigin2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): liborigin2 (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) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) liborigin2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): liborigin.so.2()(64bit) liborigin2(x86-64) Provides -------- liborigin2-doc: liborigin2-doc liborigin2: liborigin.so.2()(64bit) liborigin2 liborigin2(x86-64) liborigin2-devel: liborigin2-devel liborigin2-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://sourceforge.net/projects/liborigin/files/liborigin/2.0/liborigin-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ccd3771ec2437af6603ab449c34dc04876951144e835a2ef1882ac16a7094304 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ccd3771ec2437af6603ab449c34dc04876951144e835a2ef1882ac16a7094304 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1127173 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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