https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Raphael Groner <projects.rg@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg@xxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ++ = Remarks ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [?]: Package contains no static executables. ++ {*}Suggestion: Clean up CMakeLists.txt for specifical Fedora usage. IMHO one general Makefile (or cmake in our case) for all thinkable platforms is not useful, it includes also stuff for unsupported platforms and could pull in bugs. That should be prevented as best as possible, so remove dead code. Quite similiar logic to bundled libs, maybe compare analogues to guidelines. I'll attach a clean CMakeLists.txt and a modified spec file, please take a look. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/fedora-review/indi-sx/licensecheck.txt ++ OK, MIT is compatible to GPLv2+ [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. ++ see above {*} [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. ++ I don't have the time to read the code details, besides am no owner of any INDI devices. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. ++ Original CMakeLists.txt support ARM only for Debian. Please ask upstream about official Fedora/ARM support. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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: [?]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Packager: Raphael Groner <projects.rg [AT] smart.ms> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags ++ Maybe bug due to my rpmbuild configuration. Let's ignore it. [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ++ Upstreamed patch is confirmed. {**} [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. ++ See {**} [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments ++ Comments found. [-]: 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. ++ Must be validated again with help from koji. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: indi-sx-0.9.9-3.20141025svn1784.fc22.x86_64.rpm indi-sx-0.9.9-3.20141025svn1784.fc22.src.rpm indi-sx.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ++ Take a loog at bug #794777, bug #483199, bug #436500. All three are CLOSED ERRATA. indi-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary indi_sx_ao indi-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sx_ccd_test indi-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary indi_sx_wheel indi-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary indi_sx_ccd indi-sx.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{revision} indi-sx.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{driver} indi-sx.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{name} indi-sx.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{version} indi-sx.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{checkout} indi-sx.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{name} indi-sx.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{version} indi-sx.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{checkout} indi-sx.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{name} indi-sx.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{version} indi-sx.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{checkout} indi-sx.src:42: W: macro-in-comment %{_udevrulesdir} indi-sx.src: W: invalid-url Source0: indi-sx-0.9.9.20141025svn1784.tar.xz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings. ++ OK Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint indi-sx indi-sx.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib indi-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary indi_sx_ao indi-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sx_ccd_test indi-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary indi_sx_wheel indi-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary indi_sx_ccd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- indi-sx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libindidriver.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) udev ++OK Provides -------- indi-sx: indi-sx indi-sx(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -rn /home/build/rpmbuild/SRPMS/indi-sx-0.9.9-3.20141025svn1784.fc20.src.rpm 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