https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173625 Antti Järvinen <antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Antti Järvinen <antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Ok, here is a review. I'm not in suitable group to push your package further but I made a review anyway. Packaging seems to be done in sane manner, also I used fcitx-qt4 as a reference as it is already packaged and deemed to be ok ; while fcitx-qt4 has only one source rpm producing multiple binary rpms the structure and packaging is slightly similar anyway. Questions and notes are the following: - License is GPLv2 - is there need to give special mention in spec to platforminputcontext/keyserver_x11.h that is not in GPLv2? - In source rpm the spec file says version 1.0.1 but changelog in same file mentions only version 0.1.3-1 -- Antti Järvinen Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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]: 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. 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: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later) LGPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/review-1173625/1173625-fcitx- qt5/licensecheck.txt Note: According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios it might be correct to say in .spec something like # The entire source code is GPLv2+ except # platforminputcontext/keyserver_x11.h which is LGPLv2 License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2 [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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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. Note2: There is very little documentation. The readme-file included in binary rpm is 24 bytes long. This is ok and this thing is a plugin but if there is anything that user may do to influence workings of the plugin, I'd like to see that documented? [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. [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: [-]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Note: There seems to be 1.0.2 avail since april 21th ; package was latest when it was submitted to review. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Note: tried only x86_64 ; is ok [-]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [!]: 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: fcitx-qt5-1.0.1-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm fcitx-qt5-devel-1.0.1-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm fcitx-qt5-1.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm fcitx-qt5.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.3-1 ['1.0.1-1.fc21', '1.0.1-1'] fcitx-qt5-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib fcitx-qt5-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /tmp/review-1173625/1173625-fcitx-qt5/srpm/fcitx-qt5.spec 2015-04-29 18:21:02.610004850 +0000 +++ /tmp/review-1173625/1173625-fcitx-qt5/srpm-unpacked/fcitx-qt5.spec 2015-04-16 11:02:03.000000000 +0000 @@ -61,7 +61,4 @@ %changelog -* Thu Apr 16 2015 Robin Lee <cheeselee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.1-1 -- Update to 1.0.1 - * Fri Dec 12 2014 Robin Lee <cheeselee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.1.3-1 - Initial package Requires -------- fcitx-qt5-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake fcitx-qt5(x86-64) fcitx-qt5 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig fcitx(x86-64) libFcitxQt5DBusAddons.so.1()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5DBus.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfcitx-config.so.4()(64bit) libfcitx-utils.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- fcitx-qt5-devel: fcitx-qt5-devel fcitx-qt5-devel(x86-64) fcitx-qt5: fcitx-qt5 fcitx-qt5(x86-64) libFcitxQt5DBusAddons.so.1()(64bit) libFcitxQt5WidgetsAddons.so.1()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- fcitx-qt5: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/platforminputcontexts/libfcitxplatforminputcontextplugin.so Source checksums ---------------- http://download.fcitx-im.org/fcitx-qt5/fcitx-qt5-1.0.1.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a4e4fd0b695041a207e78a708915b7fe2788612c220865cad4e1f6851d531f8d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a4e4fd0b695041a207e78a708915b7fe2788612c220865cad4e1f6851d531f8d Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1173625 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