[Bug 1270513] Review Request: newtonsoft-json - Popular high-performance JSON framework

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270513



--- Comment #3 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz <claudiorodrigo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Need split pc file into -devel package
Need add:
%dir %{_monodir}/%{name}

===== MUST items =====

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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with
     incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 317 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /media/galileo/fedora/1270513-newtonsoft-json/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/mono/newtonsoft-json
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/mono/newtonsoft-json
[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.
[!]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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).
[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.
[!]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
     Note: newtonsoft-json : /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/newtonsoft-json.pc
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: newtonsoft-json-7.0.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          newtonsoft-json-7.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
newtonsoft-json.x86_64: E: no-binary
newtonsoft-json.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
newtonsoft-json.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/newtonsoft-json.pc
newtonsoft-json.src:40: W: macro-in-comment %{libname}
newtonsoft-json.src:42: W: macro-in-comment %{libname}
newtonsoft-json.src:66: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No existe el fichero o el directorio
newtonsoft-json.x86_64: E: no-binary
newtonsoft-json.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
newtonsoft-json.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/newtonsoft-json.pc
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
newtonsoft-json (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    mono(System)
    mono(System.Core)
    mono(System.Data)
    mono(System.Numerics)
    mono(System.Runtime.Serialization)
    mono(System.Xml)
    mono(System.Xml.Linq)
    mono(mscorlib)



Provides
--------
newtonsoft-json:
    mono(Newtonsoft.Json)
    newtonsoft-json
    newtonsoft-json(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(newtonsoft-json)

-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]