[Bug 1157794] Review Request: xpa - The X Public Access messaging system

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794

Christian Dersch <chrisdersch@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #8 from Christian Dersch <chrisdersch@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Approved, should be fine :)

Greetings,
Christian


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package do not use a name that already exist
  Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/xpa
  See:
 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names


===> This is retired version of this package => fine


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.

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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/lupinix/1157794-xpa/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/tcl8.6
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/tcl8.6
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 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 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:
[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.
[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 xpa-devel ,
     xpa-libs , xpa-tcl , xpa-doc
[x]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1843200 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: xpa-2.1.15-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          xpa-devel-2.1.15-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          xpa-libs-2.1.15-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          xpa-tcl-2.1.15-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm
          xpa-doc-2.1.15-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
          xpa-2.1.15-2.fc22.src.rpm
xpa-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
xpa-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time,
run-time, rudiment
xpa-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/xpa-libs/COPYING
xpa-tcl.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xpa-tcl.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/tcl8.6/tclxpa/libtclxpa.so
xpa-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/xpa-doc/COPYING
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.


===> Email sent to upstream => fine

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint xpa-tcl xpa-devel xpa xpa-doc xpa-libs
xpa-tcl.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xpa-tcl.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/tcl8.6/tclxpa/libtclxpa.so
xpa-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
xpa-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/xpa-doc/COPYING
xpa-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time,
run-time, rudiment
xpa-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/xpa-libs/COPYING
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

===> Email sent to upstream => fine

Requires
--------
xpa-tcl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libtclxpa.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    xpa-libs(x86-64)

xpa-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libxpa.so.1()(64bit)
    xpa-libs(x86-64)
    xpa-tcl(x86-64)

xpa (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libxpa.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    tcl(abi)

xpa-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

xpa-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
xpa-tcl:
    libtclxpa.so.1()(64bit)
    tcl-xpa
    xpa-tcl
    xpa-tcl(x86-64)

xpa-devel:
    xpa-devel
    xpa-devel(x86-64)

xpa:
    xpa
    xpa(x86-64)

xpa-doc:
    xpa-doc

xpa-libs:
    libxpa.so.1()(64bit)
    xpa-libs
    xpa-libs(x86-64)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
xpa-tcl: /usr/lib64/tcl8.6/tclxpa/libtclxpa.so

Source checksums
----------------
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/saord/download/xpa/xpa-2.1.15.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
ac0e041f9115757fbcbfeb377cb5833544815a70f2b46f6edfbf6d1239ae690a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ac0e041f9115757fbcbfeb377cb5833544815a70f2b46f6edfbf6d1239ae690a


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1157794
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





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]