https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1212157 Antti Järvinen <antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Antti Järvinen <antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Ok, I here is a review. Packaging seems sane to me, also the program seems to work as promised. Notes are about: - how to express licensing of parson lib in spec - the way how %{buildroot} is cleaned. - should file COPYING be installed using %license instead of %doc As you can see, a template for the review was used. -- Antti Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/review-1212157/1212157-plotnetcfg/licensecheck.txt Note: According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios I understand that in spec it should read "License: GPLv2+ and MIT/X11" and explanation should be put into comments, something like "Entire package in GPLv2+ except parson/ which is in MIT/X11" [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: due to parson, some kind of exception needed [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} is run at beginning of %install [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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 30720 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]: 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: file COPYING is there, installed with %doc. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines says that "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 must be included in %license." [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]: 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: [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present and starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} [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]: Package functions as described. Note: yes, nice visualisations [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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 x86_64 - yes it build. [-]: %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]: 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. [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: plotnetcfg-0.3-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm plotnetcfg-0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm plotnetcfg.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US graphviz -> graph viz, graph-viz, graphic plotnetcfg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US graphviz -> graph viz, graph-viz, graphic plotnetcfg.src:14: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(parson) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- plotnetcfg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- plotnetcfg: bundled(parson) plotnetcfg plotnetcfg(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jbenc/plotnetcfg/archive/d79ff1d8f69a25083c54acf010e319d70be998c1/plotnetcfg-0.3-d79ff1d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bb9052504aa71209fac81d32d34286a3c4bc4f694874f216f0e80bb7ead52fa0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bb9052504aa71209fac81d32d34286a3c4bc4f694874f216f0e80bb7ead52fa0 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1212157 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