https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259416 --- Comment #3 from David King <amigadave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines No idea why this happens, but probably fixing some of the other problems will help. :-) - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Note: pinos : /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstpinos.la See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries Easy enough to extend the existing .la file removal (if the .la file is really not required). - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. You can check the validity of the autostart file with desktop-file-validate in %check (for example). - Unversioned .so files in libdir. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning says that these should be versioned with the usual libtool versioning stuff (although it is only a SHOULD). Then, the unversioned shared object can go in the -devel package, while keeping the versioned library in the -libs package. Currently, the -lib subpackage seems empty, except for some documentation, and this is likely not intended. - Bad version numbers in changelog The version numbers should match those in the spec header. - GPL license text not needed. The only GPLv2 code in the tarball is the libtool script and xmltoman files, which are only used at build time. Therefore, you do not need to install the GPL text (and if you did, it would need to be part of the Licence tag anyway). - URL gives a 404 Would be good if this page could exist, otherwise it is best to just omit the field. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: 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]: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/david/checkout/rpms/1259416-pinos/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/dbus-1/system.d [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/dbus-1/system.d Should be owned by the dbus package, so not pinos' problem. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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 20480 bytes in 2 files. [!]: 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: http://freedesktop.org/software/pinos/releases/pinos-0.1.tar.xz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [-]: 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 pinos- libs , pinos-libs-devel , pinos-utils , pinos-debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [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. 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/david/checkout/rpms/1259416-pinos/results/pinos-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/david/checkout/rpms/1259416-pinos/results/pinos-libs-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/david/checkout/rpms/1259416-pinos/results/pinos-libs-devel-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/david/checkout/rpms/1259416-pinos/results/pinos-utils-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/david/checkout/rpms/1259416-pinos/results/pinos-debuginfo-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/david/checkout/rpms/1259416-pinos/results/pinos-debuginfo-0.1-2.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/david/checkout/rpms/1259416-pinos/results/pinos-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/david/checkout/rpms/1259416-pinos/results/pinos-libs-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/david/checkout/rpms/1259416-pinos/results/pinos-libs-devel-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/david/checkout/rpms/1259416-pinos/results/pinos-utils-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/david/checkout/rpms/1259416-pinos/results/pinos-debuginfo-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/david/checkout/rpms/1259416-pinos/results/pinos-debuginfo-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: pinos-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm pinos-libs-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm pinos-libs-devel-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm pinos-utils-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm pinos-debuginfo-0.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm pinos-0.1-2.fc24.src.rpm pinos.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.0-2 ['0.1-2.fc24', '0.1-2'] pinos.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/Pinos HTTP Error 404: Not Found pinos.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstpinos.so pinos.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/dbus-1/system.d/pinos-system.conf pinos.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/pinos.desktop pinos-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment pinos-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/Pinos HTTP Error 404: Not Found pinos-libs-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/Pinos HTTP Error 404: Not Found pinos-libs-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib pinos-libs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation pinos-utils.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/Pinos HTTP Error 404: Not Found pinos-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/Pinos HTTP Error 404: Not Found pinos.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/Pinos HTTP Error 404: Not Found pinos.src:6: W: macro-in-comment %{gitcommit} pinos.src:22: W: macro-in-comment %{gitcommit} pinos.src:139: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} pinos.src:150: W: macro-in-comment %dir pinos.src:150: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} pinos.src:151: W: macro-in-comment %dir pinos.src:151: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} pinos.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 6: #global shortcommit %(c=%{gitcommit}; echo ${c:0:5}) pinos.src: E: specfile-error pinos.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 139: #dir %{_sysconfdir}/pinos/ pinos.src: E: specfile-error pinos.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 150: #%dir %{_sysconfdir}/pinos/ pinos.src: E: specfile-error pinos.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 151: #%dir %{_libdir}/pinos/ 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 20 warnings. Requires -------- pinos-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstallocators-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstbase-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstnet-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstreamer-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpinos-0.1.so()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) pinos-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) pinos-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pinos-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pinos-libs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config pinos-libs(x86-64) pinos (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstallocators-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstbase-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstnet-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstpinos.so.0()(64bit) libgstreamer-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstvideo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libltdl.so.7()(64bit) libpinos-0.1.so()(64bit) libpinoscore-0.1.so()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) pinos-libs(x86-64) rtkit rtld(GNU_HASH) shadow-utils systemd Provides -------- pinos-utils: pinos-utils pinos-utils(x86-64) pinos-libs: pinos-libs pinos-libs(x86-64) pinos-debuginfo: pinos-debuginfo pinos-debuginfo(x86-64) pinos-libs-devel: pinos-libs-devel pinos-libs-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libpinos) pinos: gstreamer1(element-pinosdepay)()(64bit) gstreamer1(element-pinospay)()(64bit) gstreamer1(element-pinossink)()(64bit) gstreamer1(element-pinossrc)()(64bit) libgstpinos.so.0()(64bit) libpinos-0.1.so()(64bit) libpinoscore-0.1.so()(64bit) libtool(/usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstpinos.la) pinos pinos(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- pinos: /usr/lib64/gstreamer-1.0/libgstpinos.so pinos: /usr/lib64/libpinos-0.1.so pinos: /usr/lib64/libpinoscore-0.1.so Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1259416 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