[Bug 1270364] Review Request: nacl-arm-binutils - A GNU collection of binary utilities

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270364



--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> ---
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
 Manual review
- Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
  present.
  Note: Package has .a files: nacl-arm-binutils. Illegal package name:
  nacl-arm-binutils.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries

- 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: Cannot find copying.c in rpm(s)
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
 IGNORE installed: %license COPYING3 COPYING3.LIB COPYING.NEWLIB

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

C/C++:
[?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     Note: Sources not installed
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[?]: 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:
[-]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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/lib64
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
     Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[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 does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[-]: 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.
[?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: 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]: 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:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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 nacl-
     arm-binutils-debuginfo
[x]: 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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
install -m 644 bfd/libbfd.a %{buildroot}%{_libdir}
install -m 644 libiberty/libiberty.a %{buildroot}%{_libdir}
install -m 644 include/libiberty.h %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/include
install -m 644 opcodes/libopcodes.a %{buildroot}%{_libdir}
Please, use install -pm ...
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define _gnu %{nil}, %define
     enable_shared 0
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.

===== 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.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 9072640 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Installation errors
-------------------
ERROR: Cannot build target x86_64 on arch i686, because it is not listed in
legal_host_arches ('x86_64',)


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-2.gitcde986c.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo-2.25.2-2.gitcde986c.fc24.x86_64.rpm
          nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-2.gitcde986c.fc24.src.rpm
nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-nacl-ar
/usr/arm-nacl/bin/ar
nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link
/usr/bin/arm-nacl-objdump /usr/arm-nacl/bin/objdump
nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/libarm-nacl-sim.a
nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning
/usr/share/man/man1/arm-nacl-run.1.gz 19: warning: macro `"' not defined
nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link
/usr/arm-nacl/bin/objcopy /usr/bin/arm-nacl-objcopy
nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ld
/usr/bin/arm-nacl-ld
nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ld
/usr/bin/arm-nacl-ld.bfd
nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-nacl-ranlib
/usr/arm-nacl/bin/ranlib
nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/as
/usr/bin/arm-nacl-as
nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/strip
/usr/bin/arm-nacl-strip
nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/bin/arm-nacl-nm
/usr/arm-nacl/bin/nm
nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ld.bfd
/usr/bin/arm-nacl-ld
nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: cross-directory-hard-link /usr/arm-nacl/bin/ld.bfd
/usr/bin/arm-nacl-ld.bfd
nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary arm-nacl-ld.bfd
nacl-arm-binutils.x86_64: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr arm-nacl
nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-vxworks.h
nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-vxworks.c
nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-nacl.h
nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c/bfd/elf-nacl.c
nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ar -> AR, Ar, at
nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gprof -> prof, g
prof, Prof
nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ld -> ls, l, d
nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nm -> NM, mm, n
nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US objcopy -> obj
copy, obj-copy, copybook
nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US objdump -> obj
dump, obj-dump, dumpy
nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ranlib -> ran
lib, ran-lib, librarian
nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US readelf -> read
elf, read-elf, reader
nacl-arm-binutils.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
nacl-binutils-2.25.2-gitcde986c.tar.bz2
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 24 warnings.




Requires
--------
nacl-arm-binutils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /sbin/install-info
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libncurses.so.6()(64bit)
    libnsl.so.1()(64bit)
    libtinfo.so.6()(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
nacl-arm-binutils:
    nacl-arm-binutils
    nacl-arm-binutils(x86-64)
    nacl-arm-binutils-static

nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo:
    nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo
    nacl-arm-binutils-debuginfo(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -vpn nacl-arm-binutils -m
fedora-rawhide-x86_64
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




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