https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738 --- Comment #13 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg@xxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Taylor Braun-Jones from comment #12) … > I'm not able to reproduce the rawhide error that you're are seeing. Since > what you were seeing was an internal compiler error, I wonder if it was a > buggy gcc-c++ package that has already been updated in the last 5 hours. That's odd. I am using fedora-review in a f21 system, with general use case as mock in a chroot for rawhide. > I did however hit a couple failing unit tests due to incompatibility with Lua > 5.3. I have simply disabled Lua support on Fedora > 22 for now. Upstream bug > report: > > https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/issue/74/vera-segfaults-when-built-with- > lua-53#comment-17202574 You could use BR: compat-lua-devel as like for compat-lua / compat-lua-libs packages instead, they have 5.1.5 as version. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 LICENSE_1_0.txt in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ==> Ignore, we use %license since this is a new guideline but still fedora-review without patch. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSL (v1.0)", "Unknown or generated". 45 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora- review/1208738-vera++/licensecheck.txt ==> Please fix or clarify for the bundled cpptcl. Maybe you should unbundle into a separate package. See http://cpptcl.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/cpptcl/src/LICENSE?revision=1.1&view=markup The test sources should be okay without any license text. vera.ctest : Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (see inside the file for the complete license and copyright) ==> Please add ASL 2.0 to License: and mention it in comment for the tests. http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. ==> See above for bundled cpptcl. Currently, there's no package available for cpptcl. [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. 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 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: [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required ==> OK, required for EPEL. [-]: 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 vera++-devel ==> Please fix. [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: %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 enable_lua_support 1, %define enable_lua_support 0 ==> Please fix. [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]: 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]: 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: vera++-1.3.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm vera++-devel-1.3.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm vera++-1.3.0-1.fc23.src.rpm vera++.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ==> Ignore. vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/F001.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T003.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/F002.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/L002.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T007.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T019.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/L005.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T002.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T009.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/profiles/full 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/transformations/trim_right.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T013.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/transformations/move_namespace.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T014.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/L006.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/DUMP.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T005.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/L003.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/transformations/to_lower.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T008.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T012.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T010.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/transformations/move_macros.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/transformations/to_xml.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T015.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T018.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T001.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T006.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/profiles/boost 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T017.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/L004.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/transformations/to_xml2.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T016.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T004.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/L001.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/rules/T011.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh vera++.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/vera++/transformations/move_includes.tcl 0644L /usr/bin/tclsh ==> Please fix. You can remove the shebang from all those files in the list because they won't be called directly. http://wiki.rosalab.ru/en/index.php/Rpmlint_Errors#non-executable-script Adjust this for tclsh: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries vera++-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vera -> Vera, era, aver ==> Ignore. False positive. vera++-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib vera++-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ==> Ignore. vera++.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/downloads/vera++-1.3.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 403: Forbidden ==> I do not understand. Maybe due to ++ is not resolvable. Tested in browser and works. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 37 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- vera++ (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libboost_filesystem.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_program_options.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_python.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_regex.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_wave.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) liblua-5.3.so()(64bit) libluabind.so.0.9.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtcl8.6.so()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) vera++-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vera++(x86-64) Provides -------- vera++: vera++ vera++(x86-64) vera++-devel: vera++-devel vera++-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/downloads/vera++-1.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9415657a09438353489db10ca860dd6459e446cfd9c649a1a2e02268da66f270 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9415657a09438353489db10ca860dd6459e446cfd9c649a1a2e02268da66f270 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -o=--yum --clean --init -b 1208738 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 -- 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