https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222334 --- Comment #2 from William Moreno <williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Need Work: [ ]: 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. 1- Create a -devel subpackage 2- There is a daemon command than work as a system service so you will to provide a unit service file to handle the service with systemd. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd Test Builds: Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11351834 (Failed) ARM: http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3219703 (Failed) PPC: http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2785514 (Failed) S390: http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1953880 (Failed) My local build run fine in mock but al kojis test build in rawhide are failing see: Can't locate Time/HiRes.pm in @INC (you may need to install the Time::HiRes module) (@INC contains: /usr/local/lib64/perl5 /usr/local/share/perl5 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib64/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 .) at ./wvtestrun line 10. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at ./wvtestrun line 10. Makefile:130: recipe for target 'test' failed Looks like a missing BuildRequires ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [PASS]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [PASS]: Package contains no static executables. [PASS]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [PASS]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [PASS]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [PASS]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [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]: 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. [PASS]: 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 30720 bytes in 2 files. [PASS]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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. [PASS]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [PASS]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 Python: [NA]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [NA]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [NA]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [PASS]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [PASS]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. [PASS]: 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. [PASS]: %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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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). [PASS]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [PASS]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [PASS]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: bup-0.27-0.1.fc21.x86_64.rpm bup-0.27-0.1.fc21.src.rpm bup.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) packfile -> pack file, pack-file, packsaddle bup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US packfile -> pack file, pack-file, packsaddle bup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deduplication -> reduplication, duplication, quadruplication bup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checksum -> check sum, check-sum, checks um bup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US packfiles -> pack files, pack-files, packsaddles bup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automagically -> automatically, auto magically, auto-magically bup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically bup.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) packfile -> pack file, pack-file, packsaddle bup.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US packfile -> pack file, pack-file, packsaddle bup.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deduplication -> reduplication, duplication, quadruplication bup.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checksum -> check sum, check-sum, checks um bup.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US packfiles -> pack files, pack-files, packsaddles bup.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automagically -> automatically, auto magically, auto-magically bup.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: bup-debuginfo-0.27-0.1.fc21.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- bup.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) packfile -> pack file, pack-file, packsaddle bup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US packfile -> pack file, pack-file, packsaddle bup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deduplication -> reduplication, duplication, quadruplication bup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checksum -> check sum, check-sum, checks um bup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US packfiles -> pack files, pack-files, packsaddles bup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automagically -> automatically, auto magically, auto-magically bup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Requires -------- bup (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/env fuse-python git libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) pylibacl python-tornado pyxattr rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- bup: bup bup(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- bup: /usr/lib64/bup/bup/_helpers.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/bup/bup/archive/d612d9a599590cb53a76711754f9e031f66a330a/bup-d612d9a599590cb53a76711754f9e031f66a330a.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0a8816898363b5844564c3e95f98b31d923d091634245baf3f159b054e37a268 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0a8816898363b5844564c3e95f98b31d923d091634245baf3f159b054e37a268 -- 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