https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060920 --- Comment #20 from Rich Mattes <richmattes@xxxxxxxxx> --- Here's my first pass at the review. It's in good shape, but there are still issues. See the "Note" sections under the [!] items for more details. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils Note: jpackage-utils requires are automatically generated by the buildsystem See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java ===== 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]: 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Apache (v2.0) LGPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 152 files have unknown license. Note: ThirdParty/GL/glh is BSD [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Note: -doc and -javadoc packages do not include license [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/udev, /etc/udev/rules.d [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/openni2/Drivers(openni2, libfreenect-openni), /usr/lib64/openni2(openni2, libfreenect-openni) [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Note: The Fedora CFLAGS are not present during build [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: ThirdParty/ contains GL headers, binaries, and libjpeg [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Note: the %{?_isa} macro is missing from the devel package requirement on the base package [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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Note: Use new %license macro Note: No sonames on libOpenNI2.so https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: 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: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Maven: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== 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 openni2-devel , openni2-java , openni2-javadoc , openni2-doc , openni2-examples [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Note: no comments around patches [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Note: -p flag should be added to "install" commands in spec [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define psarch x86, %define psarch x64, %define psarch Arm [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Java: [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: openni2 subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: openni2-2.2.0.33-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm openni2-devel-2.2.0.33-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm openni2-java-2.2.0.33-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm openni2-javadoc-2.2.0.33-1.fc21.noarch.rpm openni2-doc-2.2.0.33-1.fc21.noarch.rpm openni2-examples-2.2.0.33-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm openni2-2.2.0.33-1.fc21.src.rpm openni2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US middleware -> middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight openni2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lifecycle -> life cycle, life-cycle, Wycliffe openni2.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libOpenNI2.so openni2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Ni2Viewer openni2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary PSLinkConsole openni2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary PS1080Console openni2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib openni2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation openni2-java.x86_64: W: no-documentation openni2-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados openni2-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US documentatation -> documentation, instrumentation, argumentation openni2-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MWClosestPointApp openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary SimpleViewer openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MultiDepthViewer openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ClosestPointViewer openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MultipleStreamRead openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary EventBasedRead openni2-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary SimpleRead openni2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US middleware -> middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight openni2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lifecycle -> life cycle, life-cycle, Wycliffe 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 22 warnings. Requires -------- openni2-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils libOpenNI2.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(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) openni2 rtld(GNU_HASH) openni2-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils openni2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(openni2) ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libGL.so.1()(64bit) libOpenNI2.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libglut.so.3()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) openni2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): openni2-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libGL.so.1()(64bit) libMWClosestPoint.so()(64bit) libOpenNI2.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libglut.so.3()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) openni2 rtld(GNU_HASH) openni2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config openni2 pkgconfig(libusb-1.0) Provides -------- openni2-java: libOpenNI2.jni.so()(64bit) openni2-java openni2-java(x86-64) openni2-javadoc: openni2-javadoc openni2: config(openni2) libDummyDevice.so()(64bit) libOniFile.so()(64bit) libOpenNI2.so()(64bit) libPS1080.so()(64bit) libPSLink.so()(64bit) openni2 openni2(x86-64) openni2-doc: openni2-doc openni2-examples: openni2-examples openni2-examples(x86-64) openni2-devel: openni2-devel openni2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libopenni2) Unversioned so-files -------------------- openni2: /usr/lib64/libOpenNI2.so openni2: /usr/lib64/openni2/Drivers/libDummyDevice.so openni2: /usr/lib64/openni2/Drivers/libOniFile.so openni2: /usr/lib64/openni2/Drivers/libPS1080.so openni2: /usr/lib64/openni2/Drivers/libPSLink.so openni2-java: /usr/lib64/openni2/libOpenNI2.jni.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/OpenNI/OpenNI2/archive/7bef8f639e4d64a85a794e85fe3049dbb2acd32e/openni2-2.2.0.33-7bef8f6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 02809a74d42ccb32fd06ea9f01e4a4e7193d6b133747c212948d8f7f6b9a6d29 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 02809a74d42ccb32fd06ea9f01e4a4e7193d6b133747c212948d8f7f6b9a6d29 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1060920 Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, 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