https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1237247 David Kaspar <dkaspar@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from David Kaspar <dkaspar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [C] = Pass - manually checked >>> = Reviewer notes ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [C]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [C]: 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: [C]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [C]: 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)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "BSL (v1.0) MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dkaspar/1237247-nghttp2/licensecheck.txt [C]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses >>>: The license itself (COPYING) is part of the 'libnghttp2' package which is required to install the 'nghttp2' package. (The rpmlint check below does not see the %license macro correctly - more info @ https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/fedorareview/2015-February/000211.html). [C]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [C]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [C]: Changelog in prescribed format. [C]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [C]: Development files must be in a -devel package [C]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [C]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [C]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. >>>: Tested only on RHEL-7.2. [C]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [C]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [C]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [C]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [C]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [C]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 1 files. [C]: 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]: 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: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [C]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libnghttp2 [?]: Package functions as described. [C]: Latest version is packaged. [C]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [C]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [C]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [C]: %check is present and all tests pass. [C]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nghttp2-1.0.5-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm libnghttp2-1.0.5-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm libnghttp2-devel-1.0.5-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm nghttp2-1.0.5-1.fc23.src.rpm libnghttp2.x86_64: W: no-documentation nghttp2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/tatsuhiro-t/nghttp2/releases/download/v1.0.5/nghttp2-1.0.5.tar.xz HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. >>>: The no-documentation warning is caused because the fedora-review does not respect the %license macro as stated above. >>>: The URL for Source0 is working correctly (fedora-review can't handle redirection correctly). Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: nghttp2-debuginfo-1.0.5-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory >>>: Not a problem of the package. libnghttp2.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libnghttp2.so.14.0.5 libnghttp2.so.14()(64bit) >>>: False-positive. Checked. libnghttp2.x86_64: W: no-documentation >>>: See the %license bug described above. libnghttp2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib >>>: Expected behaviour. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- nghttp2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libev.so.4()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libnghttp2(x86-64) libnghttp2.so.14()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libnghttp2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libnghttp2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libnghttp2(x86-64) libnghttp2.so.14()(64bit) pkgconfig Provides -------- nghttp2: nghttp2 nghttp2(x86-64) libnghttp2: libnghttp2 libnghttp2(x86-64) libnghttp2.so.14()(64bit) libnghttp2-devel: libnghttp2-devel libnghttp2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libnghttp2) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tatsuhiro-t/nghttp2/releases/download/v1.0.5/nghttp2-1.0.5.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8515822015016008ac536de92a7e3652c7dd4f67315ee415f26a30a505f8c821 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8515822015016008ac536de92a7e3652c7dd4f67315ee415f26a30a505f8c821 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1237247 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 >>>: Tested on RHEL-7.2. ===== OVERALL RESULT ===== Review passed successfully. -- 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