https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129224 Julien Enselme <jujens@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jujens@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #11 from Julien Enselme <jujens@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi, Since I would like to see seafile in the official repository, I did a review with the hope to help Christopher Meng. Please note that I have no experience in packaging C/C++ application. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - 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 %license. Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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 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 (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1129224-libsearpc/licensecheck.txt [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. [ ]: 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. [!]: 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 3 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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 Python: [X]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [X]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. [X]: Latest version is packaged. [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. [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]: 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]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libsearpc-3.0-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm libsearpc-devel-3.0-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm libsearpc-3.0-3.fc21.src.rpm libsearpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Searpc -> Search libsearpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deserialization -> serialization, materialization, denationalization libsearpc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary searpc-codegen.py libsearpc-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libsearpc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libsearpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Searpc -> Search libsearpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deserialization -> serialization, materialization, denationalization 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libsearpc-debuginfo-3.0-3.fc21.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libsearpc-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libsearpc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libsearpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Searpc -> Search libsearpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deserialization -> serialization, materialization, denationalization libsearpc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary searpc-codegen.py 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- libsearpc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config glib2-devel jansson-devel libsearpc(x86-64) pkgconfig(gio-2.0) pkgconfig(gobject-2.0) pkgconfig(jansson) libsearpc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig /usr/bin/env libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libjansson.so.4()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libsearpc-devel: libsearpc-devel libsearpc-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libsearpc) libsearpc: libsearpc libsearpc(x86-64) libsearpc.so.1()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/haiwen/libsearpc/archive/v3.0-latest.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 56313771e0ad7dc075c4590b6a75daeb3939937b21716d82c91be2612133b8cd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 56313771e0ad7dc075c4590b6a75daeb3939937b21716d82c91be2612133b8cd Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1129224 Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 According to the README, gobject-2.0 and python simplejson (for pysearpc) are required to build the package but there are not in the BR section. Even if the package builds without error in mock I think they should be specified. Since the package build some python files, it must have the BR python2-devel. At the end of the COPYING file there is a section about the clar framework (used for the tests, not package) to be under MIT license. I don't know if we should remove it or not. Maybe add a %check section and launched tests? -- 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