https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259002 Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> --- None of the issues I see are blocking, so I have sponsored you into the packager group and approved this review. However, if you could take a look at the non-blocking issues before importing that would be great. You should be able to continue the process from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner If you have any questions at all, please don't hesitate to ask me in private email, here, on the devel list or on irc in #fedora-devel. Welcome to the fun! Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines IGNORE: This seems to be a fedora-review bug where it's trying to install the debuginfo package twice. No actual issue here. - non blocker: Perhaps the doc subpackage could be made noarch and not depend on the main package? (Also would need a copy of the license then). That would save space on mirrors and allow people to install the docs without needing to install the base package. - non blocker: Could you add comments for the patches in the spec file? If they have been submitted upstream/why they are needed? - non blocker: Check the linking to -lm and remove if unneeded. ===== 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 492 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/kevin/1259002-rudiments/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 2 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]: 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: [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 10629120 bytes in /usr/share rudiments-doc-0.53-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm:10516480 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.13 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: 1.2.13 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.13 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/fedora/kevin/1259002-rudiments/results/rudiments-0.53-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/fedora/kevin/1259002-rudiments/results/rudiments-devel-0.53-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/fedora/kevin/1259002-rudiments/results/rudiments-doc-0.53-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/fedora/kevin/1259002-rudiments/results/rudiments-debuginfo-0.53-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/fedora/kevin/1259002-rudiments/results/rudiments-debuginfo-0.53-4.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/fedora/kevin/1259002-rudiments/results/rudiments-0.53-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/fedora/kevin/1259002-rudiments/results/rudiments-devel-0.53-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/fedora/kevin/1259002-rudiments/results/rudiments-doc-0.53-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/fedora/kevin/1259002-rudiments/results/rudiments-debuginfo-0.53-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/fedora/kevin/1259002-rudiments/results/rudiments-debuginfo-0.53-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: rudiments-0.53-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm rudiments-devel-0.53-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm rudiments-doc-0.53-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm rudiments-debuginfo-0.53-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm rudiments-0.53-4.fc24.src.rpm rudiments.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers rudiments-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib rudiments.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- rudiments (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpcre.so.1()(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) rtld(GNU_HASH) rudiments-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rudiments(x86-64) rudiments-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rudiments-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/pkg-config librudiments-0.53.so.1()(64bit) rudiments(x86-64) Provides -------- rudiments: librudiments-0.53.so.1()(64bit) rudiments rudiments(x86-64) rudiments-doc: rudiments-doc rudiments-doc(x86-64) rudiments-debuginfo: rudiments-debuginfo rudiments-debuginfo(x86-64) rudiments-devel: pkgconfig(rudiments) rudiments-devel rudiments-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/rudiments/rudiments-0.53.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : befa05319a431da4a6dbbcae0a590d4d53274ea2776c4b3980c1672a6e7ac0c8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : befa05319a431da4a6dbbcae0a590d4d53274ea2776c4b3980c1672a6e7ac0c8 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1259002 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