[Bug 1246761] Review Request: libqtelegram-ae - Qt Telegram API wrapper library

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246761



--- Comment #4 from William Moreno <williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Package Review
==============

Need Work:
==========
1- You must use the %license macro in %%files for the license text.

2- Package must own all directories that it creates.
   Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/qt5

3- Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

Can you repclace:
https://github.com/Aseman-Land/libqtelegram-aseman-edition/blob/master/util/cryptoutils.h

With: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/crypto-utils/

RPMLint:

W: summary-not-capitalized C libqtelegram 
Please update summary 

This depencies are needed?
libqtelegram-ae.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libqtelegram-ae.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libssl.so.10
libqtelegram-ae.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libqtelegram-ae.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libQt5Multimedia.so.5
libqtelegram-ae.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libqtelegram-ae.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libGL.so.1
libqtelegram-ae.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libqtelegram-ae.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6


Please fix this issues to check:

[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

This package build fine in epel7 and suported Fedoras:
https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/williamjmorenor/fedora-review-test/monitor/

===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
PASS: Package does not contain kernel modules.
PASS: Package contains no static executables.
PASS: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
PASS: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
PASS: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
PASS: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
PASS: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
PASS: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
      other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
      Guidelines.
PASS: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
PASS: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
PASS: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
PASS: Changelog in prescribed format.
PASS: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
NA:   Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
PASS: Development files must be in a -devel package
PASS: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
PASS: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
      names).
PASS: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
PASS: Package does not generate any conflict.
PASS: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
NA:   If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
      Provides are present.
PASS: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
PASS: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
NA:   Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
PASS: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
PASS: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
PASS: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
      (~1MB) or number of files.
      Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
PASS: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
      one supported primary architecture.
PASS: Package installs properly.
PASS: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
PASS: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
PASS: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
PASS: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
      that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
PASS: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
PASS: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
      beginning of %install.
PASS: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
PASS: Dist tag is present.
PASS: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
PASS: Permissions on files are set properly.
PASS: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR= doesn't
      work.
PASS: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
PASS: Package does not use a name that already exists.
PASS: Package is not relocatable.
PASS: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
      provided in the spec URL.
PASS: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
      %{name}.spec.
PASS: File names are valid UTF-8.
PASS: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
PASS: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
      file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
PASS: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
PASS: Package functions as described.
PASS: Latest version is packaged.
PASS: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
PASS: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
      justified.
NA:   Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
PASS: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
NA:   Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
      translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
PASS: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
      architectures.
      http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1939889
      http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3142858
      http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2720987
NA:   %check is present and all tests pass.
PASS: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
      files.
PASS: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
PASS: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
PASS: Buildroot is not present
PASS: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
      $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
PASS: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
PASS: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
PASS: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
PASS: SourceX is a working URL.
PASS: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
PASS: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
      Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
PASS: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
      Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
PASS: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
      is arched.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libqtelegram-ae-0.5.0-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          libqtelegram-ae-devel-0.5.0-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          libqtelegram-ae-0.5.0-2.fc21.src.rpm
libqtelegram-ae-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libqtelegram -
development for libqtelegram
libqtelegram-ae-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libqtelegram-ae-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libqtelegram-ae.src:38: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab:
line 38)
libqtelegram-ae.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libqtelegram-ae-0.5.0.tar.xz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libqtelegram-ae-debuginfo-0.5.0-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm
libqtelegram-ae-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/libqtelegram-ae-0.5.0/core/connection.cpp
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
libqtelegram-ae.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/Aseman-Land/libqtelegram-aseman-edition <urlopen error
[Errno -2] Name or service not known>
libqtelegram-ae.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libqtelegram-ae.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libssl.so.10
libqtelegram-ae.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libqtelegram-ae.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libQt5Multimedia.so.5
libqtelegram-ae.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libqtelegram-ae.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libGL.so.1
libqtelegram-ae.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libqtelegram-ae.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
libqtelegram-ae-devel.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libqtelegram -
development for libqtelegram
libqtelegram-ae-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/Aseman-Land/libqtelegram-aseman-edition <urlopen error
[Errno -2] Name or service not known>
libqtelegram-ae-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libqtelegram-ae-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libqtelegram-ae-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/Aseman-Land/libqtelegram-aseman-edition <urlopen error
[Errno -2] Name or service not known>
libqtelegram-ae-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/libqtelegram-ae-0.5.0/core/connection.cpp
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.

Requires
--------
libqtelegram-ae (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /sbin/ldconfig
    libGL.so.1()(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Multimedia.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.10()(64bit)
    libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libssl.so.10()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libqtelegram-ae-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libqtelegram-ae(x86-64)
    libqtelegram-ae.so.1()(64bit)

Provides
--------
libqtelegram-ae:
    libqtelegram-ae
    libqtelegram-ae(x86-64)
    libqtelegram-ae.so.1()(64bit)

libqtelegram-ae-devel:
    libqtelegram-ae-devel
    libqtelegram-ae-devel(x86-64)

-- 
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]