https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273833 Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx | Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- - undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings are quieted by adding -fwhole-program flag to CFLAGS variable. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html But I'm not sure that it's the right workaround. - Tests are not execute (maybe they aren't still entirely provided). Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1273833-libsoc/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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 3 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]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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). [ ]: 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. [?]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [!]: 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) [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. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: libsoc-0.6.5-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm libsoc-devel-0.6.5-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm libsoc-0.6.5-1.fc24.src.rpm libsoc.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C interface with common SoC peripherals through generic kernel interfaces libsoc-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libsoc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libsoc.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C interface with common SoC peripherals through generic kernel interfaces 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libsoc-debuginfo-0.6.5-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory libsoc.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C interface with common SoC peripherals through generic kernel interfaces libsoc.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5 libsoc.so.2()(64bit) libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5 libsoc_pwm_debug libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5 file_open libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5 libsoc_spi_debug libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5 file_read_str libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5 file_close libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5 file_write_str libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5 libsoc_i2c_debug libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5 libsoc_gpio_debug libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5 file_write_int_path libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5 file_read libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5 file_valid libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5 file_write libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5 libsoc_debug libsoc-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libsoc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/sagitter/1273833-libsoc/srpm/libsoc.spec 2015-10-23 22:57:51.355245048 +0200 +++ /home/sagitter/1273833-libsoc/srpm-unpacked/libsoc.spec 2015-10-21 12:51:45.000000000 +0200 @@ -2,5 +2,5 @@ Version: 0.6.5 Release: 1%{?dist} -Summary: Interface with common SoC peripherals through generic kernel interfaces +Summary: interface with common SoC peripherals through generic kernel interfaces Group: System Environment/Libraries Requires -------- libsoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libsoc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libsoc(x86-64) libsoc.so.2()(64bit) Provides -------- libsoc: libsoc libsoc(x86-64) libsoc.so.2()(64bit) libsoc-devel: libsoc-devel libsoc-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libsoc) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jackmitch/libsoc/archive/0.6.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7f0e632f759e35ce6e4622c12efd084ceacabf529d32a46c7d37b4621d0a0770 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f0e632f759e35ce6e4622c12efd084ceacabf529d32a46c7d37b4621d0a0770 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1273833 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