https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197041 Dennis Gilmore <dennis@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |dennis@xxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Dennis Gilmore <dennis@xxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros - 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. Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (2 clause)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dennis/1197041-xorg-x11-drv- fbturbo/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: 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. [?]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [ ]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define moduledir %(pkg-config xorg-server --variable=moduledir ), %define driverdir %{moduledir}/drivers, %define gitdate 20150221, %define gitrev .%{gitdate}, %define dirsuffix %{gitdate}, %define dirsuffix %{version} [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [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: xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo-0.5.1-0.1.20150221.fc21.armv7hl.rpm xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo-0.5.1-0.1.20150221.fc21.src.rpm xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo.armv7hl: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fbdev -> bedevil xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo.armv7hl: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optimised -> optimized, optimist, optimism xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo.armv7hl: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.5.1-0.1 ['0.5.1-0.1.20150221.fc21', '0.5.1-0.1.20150221'] xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fbdev -> bedevil xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optimised -> optimized, optimist, optimism xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo.src: W: strange-permission make-git-snapshot.sh 0775L xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo.src: E: specfile-error sh: xserver-sdk-abi-requires: command not found xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo.src: E: specfile-error sh: xserver-sdk-abi-requires: command not found xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo.src: E: specfile-error Package xorg-server was not found in the pkg-config search path. xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo.src: E: specfile-error Perhaps you should add the directory containing `xorg-server.pc' xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo.src: E: specfile-error to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo.src: E: specfile-error No package 'xorg-server' found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Xorg ld-linux-armhf.so.3 libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.5) rtld(GNU_HASH) xserver-abi(ansic-0) xserver-abi(videodrv-18) Provides -------- xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo: xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo(armv7hl-32) Unversioned so-files -------------------- xorg-x11-drv-fbturbo: /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/fbturbo_drv.so AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: xf86-video-fbturbo-20150221/configure.ac:48 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1197041 Buildroot used: fedora-21-armhfp 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 There is some inconsistent macro useage that can be fixed on import Approved -- 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