https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206826 --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng <i@xxxxxxxx> --- Sorry for the delay. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: z3-doc : /usr/share/doc/z3-doc/examples/tptp/tptp5.h z3-doc : /usr/share/doc/z3-doc/examples/tptp/tptp5.tab.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages --> I think it's acceptable, ignored. - 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.txt in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text --> Bug I think. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1435 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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. Java: [-]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Test run failed Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Test run failed [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. Note: Test run failed [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. Note: Test run failed [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Note: Test run failed [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in z3-libs , z3-devel , z3-doc , java-z3 , ocaml-z3 , python-z3 [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. [x]: %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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: z3-4.3.2-2.20150329git.29606b5.fc23.x86_64.rpm z3-libs-4.3.2-2.20150329git.29606b5.fc23.x86_64.rpm z3-devel-4.3.2-2.20150329git.29606b5.fc23.x86_64.rpm z3-doc-4.3.2-2.20150329git.29606b5.fc23.noarch.rpm java-z3-4.3.2-2.20150329git.29606b5.fc23.x86_64.rpm ocaml-z3-4.3.2-2.20150329git.29606b5.fc23.x86_64.rpm ocaml-z3-devel-4.3.2-2.20150329git.29606b5.fc23.x86_64.rpm python-z3-4.3.2-2.20150329git.29606b5.fc23.x86_64.rpm z3-4.3.2-2.20150329git.29606b5.fc23.src.rpm z3.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Satisfiability -> Insatiability, Advisability z3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US satisfiability -> insatiability, advisability z3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> datatype, data types, data-types z3.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.3.2-1.20150327git.ac21ffe ['4.3.2-2.20150329git.29606b5.fc23', '4.3.2-2.20150329git.29606b5'] z3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary z3 z3-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libz3.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 z3-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation z3-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib z3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation z3-doc.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/z3-doc/examples/interp/iz3.cpp java-z3.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-z3.x86_64: W: no-documentation ocaml-z3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ocamlz3 ocaml-z3-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ocaml-z3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-z3.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib python-z3.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-z3.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/z3/libz3.so z3.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Satisfiability -> Insatiability, Advisability z3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US satisfiability -> insatiability, advisability z3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> datatype, data types, data-types z3.src:102: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep -e "s|\(PYTHON_PACKAGE_DIR = \).*|\1'%{buildroot}%{python_sitearch}/z3'|" \ z3.src:135: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure -p %{buildroot}%{_prefix} --githash=%{medtag} --gmp --java z3.src:135: W: configure-without-libdir-spec z3.src:179: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/libz3.so* 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 24 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- java-z3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libz3.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) z3-libs(x86-64) ocaml-z3-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ocaml(Array) ocaml(Callback) ocaml(CamlinternalFormatBasics) ocaml(Hashtbl) ocaml(Int32) ocaml(Obj) ocaml(Pervasives) ocaml(Printexc) ocaml(runtime) ocaml-z3(x86-64) z3-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): z3-libs(x86-64) ocaml-z3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libz3.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) z3-libs(x86-64) z3-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-z3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) z3-libs(x86-64) z3-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) z3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libz3.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) z3-libs(x86-64) Provides -------- java-z3: java-z3 java-z3(x86-64) libz3.so.0()(64bit) ocaml-z3-devel: ocaml(Z3) ocaml-z3-devel ocaml-z3-devel(x86-64) z3-devel: z3-devel z3-devel(x86-64) ocaml-z3: ocaml-z3 ocaml-z3(x86-64) z3-doc: z3-doc python-z3: python-z3 python-z3(x86-64) z3-libs: libz3.so.0()(64bit) z3-libs z3-libs(x86-64) z3: z3 z3(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- java-z3: /usr/lib64/z3/libz3java.so python-z3: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/z3/libz3.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Z3Prover/z3/tarball/29606b5179f76783ffb0c2ca0ed9d614847064b3/Z3Prover-z3-29606b5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fd8ad8dfa466ee678b7e0ec3c7b03086cb273f121f993f1279f6096cc33e1ac7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fd8ad8dfa466ee678b7e0ec3c7b03086cb273f121f993f1279f6096cc33e1ac7 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rvn z3-4.3.2-2.20150329git.29606b5.fc23.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic, Java, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. Use %{python2_sitearch}. 2. z3.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.3.2-1.20150327git.ac21ffe ['4.3.2-2.20150329git.29606b5.fc23', '4.3.2-2.20150329git.29606b5'] 3. Export PYTHON="%{__python2}" before configure. 4. python2 mk_api_doc.py, use %{__python2} will be better. -- 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