https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201662 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils The -java package should Require jpackage-utils (which owns /usr/lib/java). See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel You currently have a BR for python-devel - this should be python2-devel. Also, you might consider building a python3 sub-package if that is supported too - Fedora will eventually move to python 3 as the default. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python ===== 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]: 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. 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 663 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jgu/rpmbuild/1201662-wiredtiger/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses Need to Require jpackage-utils in the -java package. /usr/share/licenses is owned by the filsystem package, but I see no other packages Requiring filesystem, so perhaps this is OK. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/java, /usr/share/licenses As above. [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. [x]: 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. jpackage-utils [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. Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 2 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 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 Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python python2-devel BuildRequires needed as described above. Also, consider a python3 package. [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in wiredtiger- libs , wiredtiger-devel , wiredtiger-python , wiredtiger-java [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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. [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]: 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. Java: [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: wiredtiger 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: wiredtiger-2.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm wiredtiger-libs-2.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm wiredtiger-devel-2.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm wiredtiger-python-2.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm wiredtiger-java-2.5.1-4.fc20.x86_64.rpm wiredtiger-2.5.1-4.fc20.src.rpm wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib wiredtiger-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation wiredtiger-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation wiredtiger-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation wiredtiger.src:70: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build --with-python-prefix=%{buildroot}%{python_sitearch} \ wiredtiger.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/releases/download/2.5.1/wiredtiger-2.5.1.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- wiredtiger-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libsnappy.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wiredtiger-python (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) libwiredtiger.so.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) wiredtiger-libs(x86-64) wiredtiger (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libsnappy.so.1()(64bit) libwiredtiger.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wiredtiger-libs(x86-64) wiredtiger-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libsnappy.so.1()(64bit) libwiredtiger.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wiredtiger-libs(x86-64) wiredtiger-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libwiredtiger.so.0()(64bit) wiredtiger-libs(x86-64) Provides -------- wiredtiger-libs: libwiredtiger.so.0()(64bit) wiredtiger-libs wiredtiger-libs(x86-64) wiredtiger-python: wiredtiger-python wiredtiger-python(x86-64) wiredtiger: wiredtiger wiredtiger(x86-64) wiredtiger-java: libwiredtiger_java.so.0()(64bit) wiredtiger-java wiredtiger-java(x86-64) wiredtiger-devel: pkgconfig(wiredtiger) wiredtiger-devel wiredtiger-devel(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- wiredtiger-python: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/wiredtiger/_wiredtiger.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/wiredtiger/wiredtiger/releases/download/2.5.1/wiredtiger-2.5.1.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 589fbad039b26e37be6eaa449d657f4914f9fdaad8ff2afbe3fde041de4aaeef CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 589fbad039b26e37be6eaa449d657f4914f9fdaad8ff2afbe3fde041de4aaeef Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1201662 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic, Java, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- 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