https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205376 Antti Järvinen <antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Antti Järvinen <antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Hello Jeff, I don't have permission to sponsor your package but I made a review anyway. I did not consider every item on the list below because I'm quite a newbie in the process and of those items where I was not sure, I simply left the item open - someone more experienced please fill the missing parts (and correct the ones that are clearly wrong :) -- Antti Järvinen Review report follows: Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: spooky-c-devel. Does not provide -static: spooky-c-devel. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries - There is some discussion below about different licenses found in source - As this is a library, as a sw developer myself I'd love to see documentation of some kind, like a manual page in section 3 or something. - Rpmlint is taking person-names as spelling errors, maybe it is not good idea to ask those persons to correct their names to something that passes the dictionary-test. ===== 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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/review-1202063/1205376-spooky-c/licensecheck.txt Note: there is at least one file with LGPL boilerplate but the license given in spec file is PD ; I think it is required to list all licenses somehow, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines might be helpful. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Note: But I do not know how this applies to PD license that is not really a license. There is still the issue with LGPL file.. the LGPL file is not part of the binary rpm:s so [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. Note: supposing the license hassle is somehow solved, the content itself seems all permissible to me. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [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 10240 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 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]: 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 ===== 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in spooky-c-devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. Note: tried only amd64 ; it does. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: there is test code in the package, it takes quite long time to run the tests so I don't know if it is applicable to have those tests run at package build time. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== 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: spooky-c-1.0.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm spooky-c-devel-1.0.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm spooky-c-1.0.0-1.fc21.src.rpm spooky-c.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane spooky-c.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/spooky-c/INSTALL spooky-c-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation spooky-c.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, Dianne, Diane 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- spooky-c-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): spooky-c(x86-64) spooky-c (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- spooky-c-devel: spooky-c-devel spooky-c-devel(x86-64) spooky-c: libspooky-c.so.1()(64bit) spooky-c spooky-c(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://jlayton.fedorapeople.org/spooky-c/spooky-c-1.0.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c8dc8fec133fd49a1712ce0308c78891f5bd6c765c69066a7a69a59bb1f9ba97 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c8dc8fec133fd49a1712ce0308c78891f5bd6c765c69066a7a69a59bb1f9ba97 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1205376 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 -- 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