https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104289 --- Comment #7 from Mukundan Ragavan <nonamedotc@xxxxxxxxx> --- Here is the detailed review. There are a few "issues" that need to be sorted out. Let me know if you need some help. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ---> Bogus warning. $ rpm -qlp FoX-4.1.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm <snip> /usr/share/doc/FoX /usr/share/doc/FoX/README.FoX.txt /usr/share/licenses/FoX /usr/share/licenses/FoX/LICENSE - 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/FoX See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ---> According to Naming guidelines, Conflicting Package Names Package names which differ only in case are still considered to be conflicting. You should follow the same basic steps outlined in #Approaching_Upstream The conflicting package is (of course) fox FOX is a C++ based Toolkit for developing Graphical User Interfaces easily and effectively. It offers a wide, and growing, collection of Controls, and provides state of the art facilities such as drag and drop, selection, as well as OpenGL widgets for 3D graphical manipulation. FOX also implements icons, images, and user-convenience features such as status line help, and tooltips. Tooltips may even be used for 3D objects. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [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". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/ownCloud/pkg_reviews/1104289-FoX/licensecheck.txt ---> This is fine. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses ---> Do you know what provides this directory? repoquery does not provide any information. http://www.rpm.org/ticket/116 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 My understanding was that /usr/share/licenses would be provided by filesystem and packages will copy the license files to this directory. While your usage is correct, I am not sure what would be the best course of action here. :( Thoughts? [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses [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). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. ---> ---> There is this problem of package name 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [!]: 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 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: FoX-static. [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]: 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. [x]: 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. ---> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8073266 [-]: %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]: 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: FoX-4.1.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm FoX-devel-4.1.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm FoX-static-4.1.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm FoX-4.1.2-1.fc22.src.rpm FoX-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib FoX-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation FoX-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary FoX-config FoX-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint FoX-static FoX-devel FoX FoX-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation FoX-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib FoX-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation FoX-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary FoX-config 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- FoX-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): FoX(x86-64) FoX-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh FoX(x86-64) libFoX_common.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_dom.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_dompp.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_fsys.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_sax.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_utils.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wcml.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wkml.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wxml.so.0()(64bit) FoX (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- FoX-static: FoX-static FoX-static(x86-64) FoX-devel: FoX-devel FoX-devel(x86-64) FoX: FoX FoX(x86-64) libFoX_common.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_dom.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_dompp.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_fsys.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_sax.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_utils.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wcml.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wkml.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wxml.so.0()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://www1.gly.bris.ac.uk/~walker/FoX/source/FoX-4.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3b749138229e7808d0009a97e2ac47815ad5278df6879a9cc64351a7921ba06f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3b749138229e7808d0009a97e2ac47815ad5278df6879a9cc64351a7921ba06f Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1104289 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