https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780 --- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions Permissions should be 0755, not 0775, on libraries. But nobody cares too much, so this can be ignored if it is inconvenient to fix. - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/tmp/1196780-xtuple- openrpt/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL I assume that this is a desynchronization caused by latest changes. Just make sure that the tarballs match when the package is actually built. Suggested summary: Reporting utility and libraries for postbooks There *should* be a desktop file, and an appdata file to boot. Unless you consider the *gui versions not really useful. What is the plan here: are users supposed to use /usr/bin/importmqlgui, /usr/bin/importrptgui, etc? ===== 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1196780-xtuple- openrpt/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/openrpt/OpenRPT, /usr/share/openrpt Should be owned by the package. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/openrpt/OpenRPT, /usr/share/openrpt [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. [-]: 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]: 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 %license. [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]: 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in xtuple- openrpt-libs , xtuple-openrpt-devel I think an explicit Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} should be added to the main package. Right now it only has the automatically generated requires, so if the package is updated without changing so versions, -libs could get out of sync. Better to prevent that. [x]: Package functions as described. Binaries run ;) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. %check would be nice, but is not required. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [?]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1454080 bytes in /usr/share Hm, why is /usr/share/openrpt/OpenRPT/images in -devel? Isn't it used in the main package? [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: xtuple-openrpt-3.3.7-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm xtuple-openrpt-libs-3.3.7-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm xtuple-openrpt-devel-3.3.7-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm xtuple-openrpt-3.3.7-1.fc23.src.rpm xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xTuple reporting utility and libraries xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-documentation xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrpt-graph xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary importmqlgui xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exportrpt xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary importrpt xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rptrender xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary metasql xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrpt xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary importrptgui xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libopenrpt -> liberation xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libopenrptcommon.so.1.0.0 0775L xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libMetaSQL.so.1.0.0 0775L xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/xtuple-openrpt/COPYING xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/librenderer.so.1.0.0 0775L xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libwrtembed.so.1.0.0 0775L xtuple-openrpt-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib xtuple-openrpt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation xtuple-openrpt.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C xTuple reporting utility and libraries xtuple-openrpt.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} xtuple-openrpt.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} xtuple-openrpt.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} xtuple-openrpt.src: W: file-size-mismatch v3.3.7.tar.gz = 1218978, https://github.com/xtuple/openrpt/archive/v3.3.7.tar.gz = 1198328 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 19 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: xtuple-openrpt-debuginfo-3.3.7-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- xtuple-openrpt-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib xtuple-openrpt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libopenrpt -> liberation xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopenrptcommon.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopenrptcommon.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libMetaSQL.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libMetaSQL.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/librenderer.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libQtNetwork.so.4 xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/librenderer.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libwrtembed.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libopenrptcommon.so.1.0.0 0775L xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libMetaSQL.so.1.0.0 0775L xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/xtuple-openrpt/COPYING xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/librenderer.so.1.0.0 0775L xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libwrtembed.so.1.0.0 0775L xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xTuple reporting utility and libraries xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-documentation xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrpt-graph xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary importmqlgui xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exportrpt xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary importrpt xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rptrender xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary metasql xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrpt xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary importrptgui 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 25 warnings. Requires -------- xtuple-openrpt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libdmtx-devel qt-devel xtuple-openrpt-libs(x86-64) xtuple-openrpt-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libMetaSQL.so.1()(64bit) libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libQtSql.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdmtx.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopenrptcommon.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librenderer.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) xtuple-openrpt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libMetaSQL.so.1()(64bit) libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libQtSql.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdmtx.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopenrptcommon.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librenderer.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libwrtembed.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- xtuple-openrpt-devel: xtuple-openrpt-devel xtuple-openrpt-devel(x86-64) xtuple-openrpt-libs: libMetaSQL.so.1()(64bit) libopenrptcommon.so.1()(64bit) librenderer.so.1()(64bit) libwrtembed.so.1()(64bit) xtuple-openrpt-libs xtuple-openrpt-libs(x86-64) xtuple-openrpt: xtuple-openrpt xtuple-openrpt(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/xtuple/openrpt/archive/v3.3.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b41cec750dbd463a9433ac654069bed9827d50c3ac2b6866ace052611b03913c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a9e6ab5660d8f01abe29ca566c30f891bc895e52fe853ff98b4680802f7dbca4 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1196780 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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