https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210004 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> --- ============== 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.GPL in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text IGNORE ===== 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1210004-libkindrv/review- libkindrv/licensecheck.txt [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/udev, /usr/share/licenses, /etc/udev/rules.d [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [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. [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. [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 798720 bytes in 161 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: 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. [x]: 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. [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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libkindrv-0.1.2-1.fc23.i686.rpm libkindrv-devel-0.1.2-1.fc23.i686.rpm libkindrv-0.1.2-1.fc23.src.rpm libkindrv.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.7 starting (python version = 2.7.5)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled yum cache Start: cleaning yum metadata Finish: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.7 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.7 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): rpmlint ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/ --releasever 23 install rpmlint --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/gil/1210004-libkindrv/libkindrv.spec 2015-04-13 14:18:09.000000000 +0200 +++ /home/gil/1210004-libkindrv/review-libkindrv/srpm-unpacked/libkindrv.spec 2015-04-08 17:16:10.000000000 +0200 @@ -5,5 +5,5 @@ License: LGPLv3+ -URL: http://fawkesrobotics.org/projects/libkindrv/ +URL: http://www.fawkesrobotics.org @@ -11,5 +11,4 @@ %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) Source0: http://git.fawkesrobotics.org/libkindrv.git/snapshot/%{commit}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz -# merged in upstream master, will be removed once a new version has been tagged Patch0: libkindrv.printf.patch @@ -37,5 +36,4 @@ pushd build # we build the doc separately because we only want it in libkindrv-devel -# and 'make install' would install it in the wrong directory %cmake \ -DBUILD_DOC=OFF \ @@ -44,5 +42,5 @@ make %{?_smp_mflags} -make %{?_smp_mflags} apidoc +make apidoc Requires -------- libkindrv-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libkindrv(x86-32) libkindrv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig config(libkindrv) libboost_system.so.1.57.0 libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libusb-1.0.so.0 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libkindrv-devel: libkindrv-devel libkindrv-devel(x86-32) pkgconfig(libkindrv) libkindrv: config(libkindrv) libkindrv libkindrv(x86-32) libkindrv.so.0 Source checksums ---------------- http://git.fawkesrobotics.org/libkindrv.git/snapshot/f56752e15db2fa58e5748ce2f82e4a424d6c0337.tar.gz#/libkindrv-f56752e.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 74698984dea923840de5a1cf928f21b8b427aaf4b5c804cfa0b30965f839ad08 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 211f1bbf41ff271dd54becfc7e83e3c32f632373f71a07fa4b63ee51e28281c9 However, diff -r shows no differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -vpn libkindrv -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 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