[Bug 1222709] Review Request: memkind - User Extensible Heap Manager

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]