https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246790 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= -> No BuildRequires: gcc It's needed after last review of guidelines. We should have ALL BRs. -> mdp-0.7.4/src/strdelim.c has BSD (2 clause) license -> %[name] is not valid macros (%description section) -> preserve timestamps. please use '-p' for install sed -i -e "s|install |install -p |" Makefile.src -> SPEC and SRPM is inconsistent -> mdp.src:30: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %configure --debug --prefix=%{buildroot}%{_prefix} I'd prefer to patch to use DESTDIR instead of --prefix=%{buildroot} -> I'm not sure about some sources. For example arc4.c. It looks like bundle, but I'm not sure. Don't have time to check myself. Notes: ====== -> make %{?_smp_mflags} could be simplier %make_build -> %setup -q I'd prefer to use %autosetup -> %check does pushd but not popd -> Ignore install fails (it's because my system a bit broken, because rawhide broken deps) ===== 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: "ISC", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/brain/1246790-mdp/licensecheck.txt [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. [!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: mdp (description) [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [ ]: 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 133120 bytes in 75 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]: 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]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mdp- debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.12 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.12 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.12 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/brain/1246790-mdp/results/mdp-0.7.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/brain/1246790-mdp/results/mdp-debuginfo-0.7.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/brain/1246790-mdp/results/mdp-debuginfo-0.7.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 install /home/brain/1246790-mdp/results/mdp-0.7.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/brain/1246790-mdp/results/mdp-debuginfo-0.7.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/brain/1246790-mdp/results/mdp-debuginfo-0.7.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: mdp-0.7.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm mdp-debuginfo-0.7.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm mdp-0.7.4-1.fc24.src.rpm mdp.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/mdp.1.gz 136: warning: macro `/'' not defined mdp.src:30: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %configure --debug --prefix=%{buildroot}%{_prefix} 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/brain/1246790-mdp/srpm/mdp.spec 2015-08-02 22:38:34.991601722 +0300 +++ /home/brain/1246790-mdp/srpm-unpacked/mdp.spec 2015-07-25 23:01:53.000000000 +0300 @@ -24,5 +24,4 @@ %prep %setup -q -# W: spurious-executable-perm find tests -name \*.sh |xargs chmod 644 @@ -45,5 +44,4 @@ rm functional/test_pager_timeout.sh make %{?_smp_mflags} test-all -rm -f regress/lock/fake_lock # exclude binaries from doc make clean Requires -------- mdp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnupg libc.so.6()(64bit) libncursesw.so.5()(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) mdp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mdp: mdp mdp(x86-64) mdp-debuginfo: mdp-debuginfo mdp-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tamentis/mdp/archive/v0.7.4.tar.gz#/mdp-0.7.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8f8c3cb4fecea9b4c4fe79aeb4eb7f92a89ae8dd36795f454dae5fc648b7ad12 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8f8c3cb4fecea9b4c4fe79aeb4eb7f92a89ae8dd36795f454dae5fc648b7ad12 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1246790 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