https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222709 Marcelo Barbosa "firemanxbr" <mr.marcelo.barbosa@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(mr.marcelo.barbos | |a@xxxxxxxxx) | --- Comment #5 from Marcelo Barbosa "firemanxbr" <mr.marcelo.barbosa@xxxxxxxxx> --- Rafael, Your package was approved, congrats! more informations about this process, please learning this wiki: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process 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]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (2 clause)". 115 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/marcelo.barbosa/1222709-memkind/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [-]: 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 memkind- devel [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: %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]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc23.x86_64.rpm memkind-devel-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc23.x86_64.rpm memkind-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc23.src.rpm memkind.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jemalloc -> allocate memkind.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary memkind-pmtt memkind.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary memkind-hbw-nodes memkind-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jemalloc -> allocate memkind-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee memkind-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib memkind.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jemalloc -> allocate 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: memkind-debuginfo-0.2.2-3.20150525git.fc23.x86_64.rpm memkind-debuginfo.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. all warnings are false positive, the package follows the original source and format. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- memkind-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jemalloc -> allocate memkind-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee memkind-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib memkind.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jemalloc -> allocate memkind.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmemkind.so.0.0.1 /lib64/libgomp.so.1 memkind.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary memkind-pmtt memkind.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary memkind-hbw-nodes 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Requires -------- memkind-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmemkind.so.0()(64bit) memkind memkind (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig /usr/bin/env ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libmemkind.so.0()(64bit) libnuma.so.1()(64bit) libnuma.so.1(libnuma_1.1)(64bit) libnuma.so.1(libnuma_1.2)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- memkind-devel: memkind-devel memkind-devel(x86-64) memkind: libmemkind.so.0()(64bit) memkind memkind(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/memkind/memkind/archive/35c83cee96432edc0b5b21680535a2f2b77a1801/memkind-35c83cee96432edc0b5b21680535a2f2b77a1801.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c9ad7d6f0517d6fc891475879844b815fab2a65dc7e4ac49ca91287d5950c7aa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c9ad7d6f0517d6fc891475879844b815fab2a65dc7e4ac49ca91287d5950c7aa https://github.com/memkind/jemalloc/archive/8a46c970035ada0154f302418cb436de49606231/jemalloc-8a46c970035ada0154f302418cb436de49606231.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 41f328baa7905058ca8c4aa1a961ca6139afaba52861b2557eb505e3a9caee3e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 41f328baa7905058ca8c4aa1a961ca6139afaba52861b2557eb505e3a9caee3e Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1222709 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