https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270355 --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: [!]: 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. Note: This package contains multiple COPYING files, none of which are included in %license [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: The files in this package are under numerous licenses, but the main concern here is that the aggregate work seems to also be under numerous licenses, based on the number of COPYING files in the source. I could be wrong, but GPLv3+ seems to be too simplistic. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Note: This is really tied into the first problem listed above. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. Note: The spec file is incredibly difficult to read, with a lot of conditionals that seem to be irrelevant for this package. I suspect that the spec was originally copied from another binutils package and never really sanitized. [!]: Permissions on files are set properly. Note: include/elf/epiphany.h is set as executable, but should not be [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]: %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. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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 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 [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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 contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Package has unneeded %clean section [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: Package uses %define in multiple places [!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. Note: It seems that ldconfig isn't needed as no libraries are installed [!]: URL is correct. Note: The URL is http://sources.redhat.com/binutils, but git points to chromium.org. Is this the correct URL? [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [-]: Latest version is packaged. Note: This version is tied to the version of Chromium being built [-]: 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. [?]: Package functions as described. Note: I've built and installed the package and verified that the commands run, but I have no idea if it actually does what it's supposed to do. This is not a blocker. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. -- 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