https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169492 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Spura <tomspur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - jquery (see below) - saucy (see below) ===== 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. [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. BSD/MIT is compatible with GPLv3+, which is the effective license after linking with readline. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. - There is a "Provides: bundled(jquery)", but I don't find jquery. Where is it installed? - saucy is included, which seems to be a copylib from: http://vlsicad.eecs.umich.edu/BK/SAUCY/ [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. [-]: 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. A proper intent between pushd/popd would make it even more readable :) [-]: 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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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. [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]: 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. Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== 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 abc-libs , abc-devel , abc-python2 [-]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Did you submit the manpage upstream? (This is a should.) [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. [x]: %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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: abc-1.01-1.hg20141130.fc21.x86_64.rpm abc-libs-1.01-1.hg20141130.fc21.x86_64.rpm abc-devel-1.01-1.hg20141130.fc21.x86_64.rpm abc-python2-1.01-1.hg20141130.fc21.x86_64.rpm abc-1.01-1.hg20141130.fc21.src.rpm abc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable, callable, calculable abc.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/abc 0775L abc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libabc.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 abc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libabc.so.0.0.0 _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 abc-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation abc-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib abc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation abc-python2.x86_64: W: no-documentation abc-python2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/abc/_pyabc.so 0775L abc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable, callable, calculable abc.src:61: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(jquery) 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings. Please fix the non-standard-executable-perms or justify them. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- <mock-chroot>[root@bright /]# rpmlint abc-python2 abc abc-devel abc-libs abc-python2.x86_64: W: no-documentation abc-python2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/abc/_pyabc.so 0775L abc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable, callable, calculable abc.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/abc 0775L abc-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib abc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation abc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libabc.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 abc-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libabc.so.0.0.0 _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 abc-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. <mock-chroot>[root@bright /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- abc-python2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) libreadline.so.6()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) abc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): abc-libs(x86-64) libabc.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) abc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): abc-libs(x86-64) libabc.so.0()(64bit) abc-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libreadline.so.6()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- abc-python2: abc-python2 abc-python2(x86-64) abc: abc abc(x86-64) abc-devel: abc-devel abc-devel(x86-64) bundled(jquery) abc-libs: abc-libs abc-libs(x86-64) libabc.so.0()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- abc-python2: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/abc/_pyabc.so Source checksums ---------------- https://bitbucket.org/alanmi/abc/get/9d6335cdb362.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ebeb629f7ebe155118eb48ed4000d5d9af85ad037c09de4b7d2f59f872e49c6d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ebeb629f7ebe155118eb48ed4000d5d9af85ad037c09de4b7d2f59f872e49c6d Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1169492 Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, 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