https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289193 --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Remove gcc-c++ as BR - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - Why a BuildRoot? Do you need this package in EPEL5? - htmlcxx-0.85/html/tree.h is licensed with GPLv2+ license Code is released with LGPLv2 license. "The uri parsing code is a derivative work of Apache web server uri parsing routines. Check www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 or the ASF-2.0 file in the distribution for details." Please, fix the License tag. - I dont see any '--without-static' option. Try with %configure --disable-static --enable-shared Maybe you don't need 'chrpath' anymore. - Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} is wrong Use Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - Remove all '*.la' files - Please, fix all rpmlint warnings Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - **Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines** This is a known bug of 'fedora-review'. - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros - 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: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Note: htmlcxx : /usr/lib64/libcss_parser.la htmlcxx : /usr/lib64/libcss_parser_pp.la htmlcxx : /usr/lib64/libhtmlcxx.la See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries ===== 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]: 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. [!]: 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)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 74 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1289193-htmlcxx/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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 51200 bytes in 6 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: 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: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in htmlcxx- devel , htmlcxx-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [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. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.14 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.14 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.14 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/sagitter/1289193-htmlcxx/results/htmlcxx-0.85-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/sagitter/1289193-htmlcxx/results/htmlcxx-devel-0.85-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/sagitter/1289193-htmlcxx/results/htmlcxx-debuginfo-0.85-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/sagitter/1289193-htmlcxx/results/htmlcxx-debuginfo-0.85-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/sagitter/1289193-htmlcxx/results/htmlcxx-0.85-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/sagitter/1289193-htmlcxx/results/htmlcxx-devel-0.85-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/sagitter/1289193-htmlcxx/results/htmlcxx-debuginfo-0.85-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/sagitter/1289193-htmlcxx/results/htmlcxx-debuginfo-0.85-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: htmlcxx-0.85-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm htmlcxx-devel-0.85-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm htmlcxx-debuginfo-0.85-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm htmlcxx-0.85-1.fc24.src.rpm htmlcxx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml htmlcxx.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Productivity/File utilities htmlcxx.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL htmlcxx.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcss_parser.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 htmlcxx.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/htmlcxx/README htmlcxx.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/htmlcxx/AUTHORS htmlcxx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary htmlcxx htmlcxx-devel.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/C and C++ htmlcxx-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL htmlcxx-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib htmlcxx-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation htmlcxx-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/htmlcxx/html/tree.h htmlcxx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL htmlcxx-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/htmlcxx-0.85/html/tree.h htmlcxx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml htmlcxx.src: W: non-standard-group Productivity/File utilities htmlcxx.src: W: invalid-license LGPL htmlcxx.src:32: W: setup-not-quiet htmlcxx.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 17 warnings. Requires -------- htmlcxx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libcss_parser.so.0()(64bit) libcss_parser_pp.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libhtmlcxx.so.3()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) htmlcxx-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config htmlcxx libcss_parser.so.0()(64bit) libcss_parser_pp.so.0()(64bit) libhtmlcxx.so.3()(64bit) htmlcxx-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- htmlcxx: htmlcxx htmlcxx(x86-64) libcss_parser.so.0()(64bit) libcss_parser_pp.so.0()(64bit) libhtmlcxx.so.3()(64bit) libtool(/usr/lib64/libcss_parser.la) libtool(/usr/lib64/libcss_parser_pp.la) libtool(/usr/lib64/libhtmlcxx.la) htmlcxx-devel: htmlcxx-devel htmlcxx-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(htmlcxx) htmlcxx-debuginfo: htmlcxx-debuginfo htmlcxx-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://sourceforge.net/projects/htmlcxx/files/htmlcxx/0.85/htmlcxx-0.85.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ab02a0c4addc82f82d564f7d163fe0cc726179d9045381c288f5b8295996bae5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ab02a0c4addc82f82d564f7d163fe0cc726179d9045381c288f5b8295996bae5 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 1289193 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