https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294568 --- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- >Spec URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libmtp11.spec >SRPM URL: http://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/libmtp11-1.1.10-1.src.rpm Why your src package does not contain a %{?dist} tag? Review: - COPYING is not tagged with %license You can use %license and %doc to package all documentation files instead to make $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_pkgdocdir}. - BuildRoot and cleaning commands are not required on EPEL6 and above. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#BuildRoot_tag - %defattr present but not needed - All examples binary files are not PIE, not full RELRO. libmtp.so.9.3.0 is not full RELRO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#PIE https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages - HTML documentation can be installed ina -doc sub-package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2662400 bytes in 149 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. [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)", "GPL", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 49 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/Downloads/libmtp11/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /lib/udev, /lib/udev/rules.d [!]: %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. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [!]: 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 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: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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 libmtp11-debuginfo [ ]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: %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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2703360 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libmtp11-1.1.10-1.el6.i686.rpm libmtp11-examples-1.1.10-1.el6.i686.rpm libmtp11-devel-1.1.10-1.el6.i686.rpm libmtp11-debuginfo-1.1.10-1.el6.i686.rpm libmtp11-1.1.10-1.el6.src.rpm libmtp11.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libmtp11-1.1.10/COPYING libmtp11-examples.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmtp -> Librium libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-documentation libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-tracks libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-emptyfolders libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-getfile libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-thumb libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-connect libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-sendtr libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-getplaylist libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-newfolder libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-newplaylist libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-reset libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-hotplug libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-folders libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-detect libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-albums libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-files libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-delfile libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-sendfile libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-format libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-trexist libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-filetree libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-albumart libmtp11-examples.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtp11-playlists libmtp11-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libmtp -> Librium libmtp11-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmtp -> Librium libmtp11-devel.i686: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/libmtp11-1.1.10/INSTALL 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 27 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libmtp11-debuginfo-1.1.10-1.el6.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Name: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Name index using db3 - Invalid argument (22) rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Name: unexpected file type or format rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Name: unexpected file type or format rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Name: unexpected file type or format rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Name: unexpected file type or format rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Name: unexpected file type or format (none): E: error while reading libmtp11: 'libmtp11' rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Name: unexpected file type or format rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Name: unexpected file type or format (none): E: error while reading libmtp11-debuginfo: 'libmtp11-debuginfo' rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Name: unexpected file type or format rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Name: unexpected file type or format (none): E: error while reading libmtp11-devel: 'libmtp11-devel' rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Name: unexpected file type or format rpmdb: /var/lib/rpm/Name: unexpected file type or format (none): E: error while reading libmtp11-examples: 'libmtp11-examples' 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- libmtp11 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6 libgcrypt.so.11 libgcrypt.so.11(GCRYPT_1.2) libmtp.so.9 libusb-1.0.so.0 rtld(GNU_HASH) udev libmtp11-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libmtp11-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libgcrypt-devel libmtp.so.9 libmtp11(x86-32) libusb1-devel pkgconfig pkgconfig(libusb-1.0) libmtp11-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6 libgcrypt.so.11 libmtp.so.9 libmtp11(x86-32) libusb-1.0.so.0 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libmtp11: libmtp.so.9 libmtp11 libmtp11(x86-32) libmtp11-debuginfo: libmtp11-debuginfo libmtp11-debuginfo(x86-32) libmtp11-devel: libmtp11-devel libmtp11-devel(x86-32) pkgconfig(libmtp) libmtp11-examples: libmtp11-examples libmtp11-examples(x86-32) Source checksums ---------------- http://download.sourceforge.net/libmtp/libmtp-1.1.10.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1eee8d4c052fe29e58a408fedc08a532e28626fa3e232157abd8fca063c90305 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1eee8d4c052fe29e58a408fedc08a532e28626fa3e232157abd8fca063c90305 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m epel-6-i386 --define EPEL6 -rn libmtp11-1.1.10-1.src.rpm Buildroot used: epel-6-i386 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 -- 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