https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199296 Sinny Kumari <ksinny@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ksinny@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Sinny Kumari <ksinny@xxxxxxxxx> --- This is unofficial package review - After fixing below issue, try running rpmlint on SRPM, Spec and RPMS generated from source tar to check if any error still exists. Issues found ------------- * Any significance of having ._configure.ac, ._Makefile.am and ._README file in source tar? * License should be GPLv2+ instead of GLPL (correct License is LGPL) according to COPYING file * Specifying BuildRoot is redundant and hence not needed to specify except for if building for EPEL5 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview * In %install section cleaning buildroot is not required rm -rf %{buildroot} * %build %configure --includedir=%{_includedir}/laszip Why does --includedir=%{_includedir}/laszip is used to include include headers of same package here? * Instead of make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install, use %make_install macro https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25install_section * explicit %clean for buildroot is not needed for fedora, only required if building for EPEL https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview * %defattr(-, root, root) is not needed from rpm 4.4 its not needed https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#File_Permissions * ldconfig called in %post and %postun is required. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries * COPYING file available in source tar should be installed in /usr/share/licenses which is done by using %licence macro %licence COPYING https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text * NEWS and README files are of zero size length, not needed to add them in %doc * %{_includedir}/laszip/*.hpp %{_libdir}/liblaszip.a %{_libdir}/liblaszip.so* Shared library, static library and header files, all together are present in main package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries * Changelog version doesn't match with package version * Tue Jan 13 2015 Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim@xxxxxxxxxx> 1.3.0-1 it should be * Tue Jan 13 2015 Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim@xxxxxxxxxx> 2.2.0-1 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs fedora-review tool output- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ====== ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Generic: [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]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: laszip-2.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm laszip-2.2.0-1.fc21.src.rpm laszip.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) compant -> company, compact, com pant laszip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rapidlasso -> rapid lasso, rapid-lasso, rapidness laszip.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3.0-1 ['2.2.0-1.fc21', '2.2.0-1'] laszip.x86_64: W: invalid-license GLPL laszip.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/laszippertest ['/usr/lib64'] laszip.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/laszip/laszipper.hpp laszip.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/laszip/NEWS laszip.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/liblaszip.so.6.0.0 laszip.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/liblaszip.so.6.0.0 laszip.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/laszip/laszipexport.hpp laszip.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/laszip/laszip.hpp laszip.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/liblaszip.so laszip.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/laszip/README laszip.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/liblaszip.a laszip.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/laszip/lasunzipper.hpp laszip.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary laszippertest laszip.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/laszip/INSTALL laszip.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) compant -> company, compact, com pant laszip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rapidlasso -> rapid lasso, rapid-lasso, rapidness laszip.src: W: invalid-license GLPL laszip.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/LASzip/LASzip/releases/download/v2.2.0/laszip-src-2.2.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 16 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- laszip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) liblaszip.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- laszip: laszip laszip(x86-64) liblaszip.so.6()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- laszip: /usr/lib64/liblaszip.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/LASzip/LASzip/releases/download/v2.2.0/laszip-src-2.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d0f6fa9c486caa6905927ebf32240aa7ef34181bbcc039cf8e51aa923557dc79 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d0f6fa9c486caa6905927ebf32240aa7ef34181bbcc039cf8e51aa923557dc79 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -n laszip 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