https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 --- Comment #11 from Christian Dersch <chrisdersch@xxxxxxxxx> --- First, thank you for reviewing the package :) Now lets go to the details (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #8) > 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. I will *not* maintain a CMakeLists.txt specific to Fedora. It is not neccessary here. And cmake means "cross-platform make" ;) I agree with you that some cleanups in this file should be done. But this is not the place and *no* Fedora specific cleanups. I will manage this with upstream in general. > [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. You are wrong. What you mean with Debian ARM only is the CPack stuff. But this doesn't matter anything here. We do not use CPack for packaging here ;) And tell my any reason why this code should only work on Debian as it is compiled from source. > [-]: 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. See Koji scratch build above ;) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7940429 Greetings, Christian -- 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