https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107800 --- Comment #7 from Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre- built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software' While GUI.jar is being built, we like to see all jar files explicitly removed first in %prep. - Drop %defattr(), no even needed in EL5. - Need to use %optflags in build. - Last changelog entry has name "root" - GUI needs a .desktop file - Use %{?_isa} in Requires. - Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%name-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag - I don't think you need to duplicate the main description in all of the sub-packages - Use %global ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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". 209 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/fedora/1107800-dl_poly/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [!]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 5 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 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 Maven: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%name-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dl_poly- common , dl_poly-doc , dl_poly-openmpi , dl_poly-mpich , dl_poly-gui [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]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define dobuild mkdir $MPI_COMPILER;make %{?_smp_mflags} build PAR=1 %{native};mv ../execute/DLPOLY.X $MPI_COMPILER/%{name}$MPI_SUFFIX [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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. Java: [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: dl_poly subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== 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: dl_poly-1.9.20140324-4.fc22.x86_64.rpm dl_poly-common-1.9.20140324-4.fc22.noarch.rpm dl_poly-doc-1.9.20140324-4.fc22.noarch.rpm dl_poly-openmpi-1.9.20140324-4.fc22.x86_64.rpm dl_poly-mpich-1.9.20140324-4.fc22.x86_64.rpm dl_poly-gui-1.9.20140324-4.fc22.noarch.rpm dl_poly-1.9.20140324-4.fc22.src.rpm dl_poly.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Todorov -> Toreador dl_poly.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelisation -> parallelism dl_poly.x86_64: W: no-documentation dl_poly.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dl_poly dl_poly-common.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Todorov -> Toreador dl_poly-common.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelisation -> parallelism dl_poly-common.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/dl_poly/utility/readbin.c dl_poly-common.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/dl_poly/utility/decrypt.c dl_poly-common.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/dl_poly/utility/encrypt.c dl_poly-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dl -> fl, d, l dl_poly-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gui -> GUI, goo, gun dl_poly-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Todorov -> Toreador dl_poly-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelisation -> parallelism dl_poly-openmpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation dl_poly-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Todorov -> Toreador dl_poly-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelisation -> parallelism dl_poly-mpich.x86_64: W: no-documentation dl_poly-gui.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Todorov -> Toreador dl_poly-gui.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelisation -> parallelism dl_poly-gui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dl_poly_gui dl_poly.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Todorov -> Toreador dl_poly.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelisation -> parallelism 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 22 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- dl_poly-gui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh java jpackage-utils dl_poly-mpich (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dl_poly-common libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpich.so.12()(64bit) libmpichf90.so.12()(64bit) libmpl.so.1()(64bit) libopa.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) mpich rtld(GNU_HASH) dl_poly (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dl_poly-common libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) dl_poly-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dl_poly-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dl_poly-openmpi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dl_poly-common libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpi.so.1()(64bit) libmpi_mpifh.so.2()(64bit) libmpi_usempi_ignore_tkr.so.0()(64bit) libmpi_usempif08.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0()(64bit) openmpi rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- dl_poly-gui: dl_poly-gui dl_poly-mpich: dl_poly-mpich dl_poly-mpich(x86-64) dl_poly: dl_poly dl_poly(x86-64) dl_poly-doc: dl_poly-doc dl_poly-common: dl_poly-common dl_poly-openmpi: dl_poly-openmpi dl_poly-openmpi(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://ccpforge.cse.rl.ac.uk/gf/download/frsrelease/255/4726/dl_class_1.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7068a44b13cf95a0659b61a3b0e76bf469051e49cc7b70e7796a98cf0d02db9c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7068a44b13cf95a0659b61a3b0e76bf469051e49cc7b70e7796a98cf0d02db9c Jar and class files in source ----------------------------- ./dl_class_1.9/java/GUI.jar -- 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