https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104289 --- Comment #8 from marcindulak <Marcin.Dulak@xxxxxxxxx> --- Spec URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/FoXlibf/r01/FoXlibf.spec SRPM URL: https://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/FoXlibf/r01/FoXlibf-4.1.2-1.fc21.src.rpm See the answers below. (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #7) > 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. > i have renamed it to FoXlibf. > > ===== 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? on Rawhide yum provides "/usr/share/licenses" gives filesystem-3.2-32.fc22. /usr/share/licenses dir was added to filesystem on: Mon Jul 28 2014 Ondrej Vasik - 3.2-28 > > > [?]: 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