https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183193 --- Comment #11 from Rich Mattes <richmattes@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/ceres-solver [!]: %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. [!]: 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. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: 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. [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]: 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 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: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [!]: 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 ceres- solver-devel [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define optflags "" [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]: 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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: 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: ceres-solver-1.10.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm ceres-solver-devel-1.10.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm ceres-solver-1.10.0-1.fc21.src.rpm ceres-solver.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimizer -> minimize, minimizes, minimized ceres-solver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US performant -> perform ant, perform-ant, performance ceres-solver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parameterizations -> characterizations, Americanizations, pasteurization ceres-solver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US evaluators -> evaluates, evaporators, elevators ceres-solver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iOS -> OS, SOS, DOS ceres-solver.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C - Trust region solvers with non-monotonic steps (Levenberg-Marquardt and Dogleg (Powell & Subspace)) ceres-solver-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimizer -> minimize, minimizes, minimized ceres-solver-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ceres-solver-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ceres-solver.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimizer -> minimize, minimizes, minimized ceres-solver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US performant -> perform ant, perform-ant, performance ceres-solver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parameterizations -> characterizations, Americanizations, pasteurization ceres-solver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US evaluators -> evaluates, evaporators, elevators ceres-solver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iOS -> OS, SOS, DOS ceres-solver.src: E: description-line-too-long C - Trust region solvers with non-monotonic steps (Levenberg-Marquardt and Dogleg (Powell & Subspace)) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings. Requires -------- ceres-solver-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ceres-solver ceres-solver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libglog.so.0()(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ceres-solver-devel: ceres-solver-devel ceres-solver-devel(x86-64) ceres-solver: ceres-solver ceres-solver(x86-64) libceres.so.1()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://ceres-solver.org/ceres-solver-1.10.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 20bb5db05c3e3e14a4062e2cf2b0742d2653359549ecded3e0653104ef3deb17 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 20bb5db05c3e3e14a4062e2cf2b0742d2653359549ecded3e0653104ef3deb17 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1183193 Buildroot used: fedora-21-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's a good start, but there are some issues. MUST: - You should use the %license macro for LICENSE, instead of %doc (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines) - %{_datadir}/%{name} isn't owned by any packages - it should probably be owned by the -devel package - The rpm optflags are completely removed, with a note that they "break the build". I rebuilt the package with the rpm optflags enabled on f21, and nothing broke. The optflags should be restored, or more explaination on failures should be given. - The removal of the optflags also removes -g, which makes the -debuginfo package less useful - Suitesparse only excludes tbb on s390 and s390x, you should follow suit and declare %ifnarch s390 s390x instead of using your current whitelist - The package should BuildRequires: eigen3-static, instead of eigen3-devel (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Header_Only_Libraries) - The description has a line that is too long - lines are limited to 80 characters or so SHOULD: - There are several constructs that are no longer needed for fedora: defattr in %files, the BuildRoot, and the %clean section. - There are unit tests, but the spec does not have a %check section to run them - The -devel package Requires for the base package should have the %_isa macro - The patch has no explanation around it, even though its title is a little self explanatory. Is there an upstream bug associated with it? -- 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