https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270554 --- Comment #5 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg@xxxxxxxx> --- 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 - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - Please verify License: tag, there are files with LGPL, GPL (in different versions), BSD and MIT. - Correct the name of SRPM (and link), weird/wrong Release there? - Is it possible to have some development files in a devel subpackage? - Version 3.2.1 is available at upstream, please update. - Use a data sub package for the large content in /usr/share/haxe/ . - Fix at least all errors of rpmlint (optionally plus warnings), see below. ===== 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: "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "zlib/libpng", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)". 2086 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora- review/1270554-haxe/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: 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. => # note that the Makefile does not support parallel building [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [?]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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 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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. => Okay, see comment. [?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in haxe- debuginfo => I do not understand. Ignore for now. [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. => Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11418047 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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]: 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) [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5376000 bytes in /usr/share 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/builder/fedora-review/1270554-haxe/results/haxe-3.2.0-9.1.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/fedora-review/1270554-haxe/results/haxe-debuginfo-3.2.0-9.1.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/fedora-review/1270554-haxe/results/haxe-debuginfo-3.2.0-9.1.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/builder/fedora-review/1270554-haxe/results/haxe-3.2.0-9.1.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/fedora-review/1270554-haxe/results/haxe-debuginfo-3.2.0-9.1.x86_64.rpm /home/builder/fedora-review/1270554-haxe/results/haxe-debuginfo-3.2.0-9.1.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: haxe-3.2.0-9.1.x86_64.rpm haxe-debuginfo-3.2.0-9.1.x86_64.rpm haxe-3.2.0-9.1.src.rpm haxe.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti => Ignore. haxe.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.2.0-1 ['3.2.0-9.1', '3.2.0-9.1'] => Weird name of the SRPM file. haxe.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/haxe 775 => Easy fix: chmod -m0755 %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} haxe.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary haxelib haxe.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary haxe => Maybe use help2man or look at other distributions for any templates. haxe-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/haxe-3.2.0/libs/swflib/swfParser.ml haxe-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/haxe-3.2.0/libs/ilib/ilMetaReader.ml haxe-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/haxe-3.2.0/libs/ilib/peReader.ml haxe-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/haxe-3.2.0/libs/swflib/as3code.ml haxe-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/haxe-3.2.0/libs/ilib/peData.ml haxe-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/haxe-3.2.0/libs/swflib/as3parse.ml haxe-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/haxe-3.2.0/libs/swflib/png.ml haxe-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/haxe-3.2.0/libs/swflib/as3hlparse.ml haxe-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/haxe-3.2.0/libs/ilib/ilMetaTools.ml haxe-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/haxe-3.2.0/libs/extc/extc_stubs.c haxe-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/haxe-3.2.0/libs/swflib/actionScript.ml haxe-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/haxe-3.2.0/libs/javalib/jData.ml haxe-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/haxe-3.2.0/libs/swflib/swf.ml haxe-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/haxe-3.2.0/libs/javalib/jReader.ml ==> Please poke upstream about that. haxe.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 15 errors, 5 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/builder/fedora-review/1270554-haxe/srpm/haxe.spec 2015-10-12 20:56:12.023418901 +0200 +++ /home/builder/fedora-review/1270554-haxe/srpm-unpacked/haxe.spec 2015-10-12 16:54:57.000000000 +0200 @@ -4,5 +4,5 @@ Name: haxe Version: 3.2.0 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 9.1 Summary: Multi-target universal programming language Requires -------- haxe (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libneko.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) nekovm rtld(GNU_HASH) haxe-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- haxe: haxe haxe(x86-64) haxe-debuginfo: haxe-debuginfo haxe-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/haxelib/archive/4fefbd17a2d9a98200b621de801018af3896d68a.tar.gz#/haxelib-4fefbd17a2d9a98200b621de801018af3896d68a.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1b817c520c67840cbfba09cd9b9fd95e34faf9ca8ecfc68a98bc83b9236169e2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1b817c520c67840cbfba09cd9b9fd95e34faf9ca8ecfc68a98bc83b9236169e2 https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/haxe/archive/3.2.0.tar.gz#/haxe-3.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9953a5ec883b3f691ba4f150416b23d5810c36671a36db8d598e300f5c0bf797 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9953a5ec883b3f691ba4f150416b23d5810c36671a36db8d598e300f5c0bf797 https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/ocamllibs/archive/7a83e902634e1db204f6e3a48c2439f63d83c141.tar.gz#/ocamllibs-7a83e902634e1db204f6e3a48c2439f63d83c141.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 291504e1b111b1adef001c2511568d8008c0323f993517e774622febeadd6c7b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 291504e1b111b1adef001c2511568d8008c0323f993517e774622febeadd6c7b Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1270554 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