https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177857 --- Comment #16 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- ====== Questions/issues ====== python2-libsedml name is a violation of guidelines, imho. It should be python-libsedml. Why does java-libsedml require libsedml-devel? Shouldn't it be libsedml? > I'd use the same license and doc dirs for all subpackages: %global > _docdir_fmt %{name}. In particular, since every sub package has the same set of files, if a user installed all subpackages, and they wanted to look at the documentation, they would simply waste time before they realized that all the READMEs are identical. fedora-review output: ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. I don't see gnulib being used anywhere. [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. 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. BSD two-clause. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 14 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]: 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 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 Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [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 (apart from the naming issue) [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel Rpmlint ------- Checking: libsedml-0.3.0-7.20150422git235bb5.fc23.x86_64.rpm libsedml-devel-0.3.0-7.20150422git235bb5.fc23.x86_64.rpm python2-libsedml-0.3.0-7.20150422git235bb5.fc23.x86_64.rpm python3-libsedml-0.3.0-7.20150422git235bb5.fc23.x86_64.rpm java-libsedml-0.3.0-7.20150422git235bb5.fc23.x86_64.rpm perl-SEDML-0.3.0-7.20150422git235bb5.fc23.x86_64.rpm ruby-SEDML-0.3.0-7.20150422git235bb5.fc23.x86_64.rpm R-SEDML-0.3.0-7.20150422git235bb5.fc23.x86_64.rpm libsedml-sharp-0.3.0-7.20150422git235bb5.fc23.x86_64.rpm libsedml-0.3.0-7.20150422git235bb5.fc23.src.rpm libsedml.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libSBML -> Librium libsedml-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libsedml-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation java-libsedml.x86_64: W: no-documentation ruby-SEDML.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libSEDML -> licensed R-SEDML.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/R/library/libSEDML/help/libSEDML.rdb R-SEDML.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/R/library/libSEDML/help/AnIndex libsedml-sharp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csharp -> sharp, c sharp, cs harp libsedml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libSBML -> Librium 10 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- python2-libsedml: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/libsedml/_libsedml.so python3-libsedml: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/libsedml/_libsedml.so java-libsedml: /usr/lib64/libsedml/libsedmlj.so perl-SEDML: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/libSEDML/LibSEDML.so ruby-SEDML: /usr/lib64/ruby/vendor_ruby/libSEDML.so R-SEDML: /usr/lib64/R/library/libSEDML/libs/libSEDML.so libsedml-sharp: /usr/lib/mono/libsedmlcsP/libsedmlcs.so Looks OK. -- 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