https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665733 Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #33 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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. [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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. ===== 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). [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: Coin3-3.1.3-6.fc22.x86_64.rpm Coin3-devel-3.1.3-6.fc22.x86_64.rpm Coin3-3.1.3-6.fc22.src.rpm Coin3.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libCoin.so.60.1.3 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 Coin3.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/Coin3/LICENSE.GPL Coin3-devel.x86_64: E: useless-provides pkgconfig(Coin) Coin3-devel.x86_64: W: read-error /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/Coin.pc [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/tmp/rpmlint.Coin3-devel-3.1.3-6.fc22.x86_64.rpm.LJrRz4/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/Coin.pc' Coin3-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Coin3-devel.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm Coin3.src:73: W: unversioned-explicit-provides pkgconfig(Coin) Coin3.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://bitbucket.org/Coin3D/coin/downloads/Coin-3.1.3.tar.gz HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- Coin3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLU.so.1()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Coin3-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/pkg-config /usr/sbin/alternatives Coin3(x86-64) bzip2-devel fontconfig-devel freetype-devel libGLU-devel pkgconfig zlib-devel Provides -------- Coin3: Coin3 Coin3(x86-64) libCoin.so.60()(64bit) Coin3-devel: Coin3-devel Coin3-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(Coin) pkgconfig(Coin3) Source checksums ---------------- https://bitbucket.org/Coin3D/coin/downloads/Coin-3.1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 583478c581317862aa03a19f14c527c3888478a06284b9a46a0155fa5886d417 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 583478c581317862aa03a19f14c527c3888478a06284b9a46a0155fa5886d417 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 665733 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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 It would be nice to move the documentation to a noarch package but not a blocker so: *** APPROVED *** -- You are receiving this mail because: 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