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