https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098965 Michal Ambroz <rebus@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED Flags| |needinfo?(adel.gadllah@gmai | |l.com) --- Comment #21 from Michal Ambroz <rebus@xxxxxxxxx> --- Review Summary ============== 1) missing link to current SPEC / SRPM 2) Use {?dist} in the Release: Please note using of the DistTag is mandatory: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag These are the only identified issues. Personally I would recommend to reference the github for the source as it might be easier to add release+patches if necessary. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to get additional checks ===== 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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. - 2 BSD type licenses, one for the project and one for the files taken from LLVM [X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 501 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in licensecheck.txt [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. - both license files installed [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/java(capstone- java, javapackages-tools) [X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. - optflags and _smp_mflags used [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. - verified with rpmlint [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. - AFAIK [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. - not applicable [X]: Development files must be in a -devel package - checked manually [X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. - AFAIK [X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). - AFAIK [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. [X]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 files. - no extensive documentation [X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines - AFAIK [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [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]: 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 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 Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Python: [X]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. - egg is OK [X]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [X]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [X]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file 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. - not applicable - both license files present [X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in capstone-java - doesn't seem to be applicable [X]: 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. [-]: 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. [X]: %check is present and all tests pass. [X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: capstone-3.0.4-1.x86_64.rpm capstone-devel-3.0.4-1.x86_64.rpm capstone-python-3.0.4-1.x86_64.rpm capstone-python3-3.0.4-1.x86_64.rpm capstone-java-3.0.4-1.noarch.rpm capstone-3.0.4-1.src.rpm capstone.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti capstone.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) disassembly -> disassemble, dis assembly, dis-assembly capstone.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassembly -> disassemble, dis assembly, dis-assembly capstone.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disasm -> disarm, sadism capstone-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib capstone-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation capstone-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation capstone-python3.x86_64: W: no-documentation capstone-java.noarch: W: no-documentation capstone.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti capstone.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) disassembly -> disassemble, dis assembly, dis-assembly capstone.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disassembly -> disassemble, dis assembly, dis-assembly capstone.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US disasm -> disarm, sadism capstone.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %{version} capstone.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %{name} capstone.src:14: W: macro-in-comment %{version} capstone.src:73: W: macro-in-comment %setup capstone.src:79: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build DESTDIR="%{buildroot}" V=1 CFLAGS="%{optflags}" \ capstone.src:83: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build sed -i 's;%{buildroot};;' capstone.pc capstone.src:164: W: macro-in-%changelog %check capstone.src:57: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 57) 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 21 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: capstone-debuginfo-3.0.4-1.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- capstone-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation capstone-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib capstone-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation capstone-python3.x86_64: W: no-documentation capstone-java.noarch: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- capstone-python (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): capstone(x86-64) python(abi) capstone-python3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): capstone(x86-64) python(abi) capstone-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config capstone(x86-64) libcapstone.so.3()(64bit) capstone-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): capstone capstone (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- capstone-python: capstone-python capstone-python(x86-64) capstone-python3: capstone-python3 capstone-python3(x86-64) capstone-devel: capstone-devel capstone-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(capstone) capstone-java: capstone-java capstone: capstone capstone(x86-64) libcapstone.so.3()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aquynh/capstone/archive/e710e4fcf40302c25d7bdc28da93571a61f21f5d/capstone-3.0.4-e710e4f.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ba94e285eae03dea60618d9b65c740ff00c037ba190247433567d7e713610b86 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ba94e285eae03dea60618d9b65c740ff00c037ba190247433567d7e713610b86 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n /home/mambroz/rpmbuild/SRPMS/capstone-3.0.4-1.src.rpm --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic, Java, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, 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