[Bug 665733] Review Request: Coin3 - High-level 3D visualization library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]