https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295075 Randy Barlow <rbarlow@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |rbarlow@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? | |needinfo?(jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #2 from Randy Barlow <rbarlow@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== A couple of things: 0) I think we should name this package erlang-p1_cache_tab and have it install to %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/p1_cache_tab. Here is output for another dependency that is packaged that way during the ejabberd build: DEBUG: is_app_available, looking for App lager with Path "/home/rbarlow/rpmbuild/BUILD/ejabberd-15.11/deps/lager" DEBUG: Directory expected to be an app dir, but it doesn't exist (yet?): /home/rbarlow/rpmbuild/BUILD/ejabberd-15.11/deps/lager DEBUG: is_app_available, looking for App lager with Path "/usr/lib64/erlang/lib/lager-1.2.2" INFO: Looking for lager-.* ; found lager-1.2.2 at /usr/lib64/erlang/lib/lager-1.2.2 This is the output when it is looking for p1_cache_tab: DEBUG: is_app_available, looking for App p1_cache_tab with Path "/home/rbarlow/rpmbuild/BUILD/ejabberd-15.11/deps/p1_cache_tab" DEBUG: Directory expected to be an app dir, but it doesn't exist (yet?): /home/rbarlow/rpmbuild/BUILD/ejabberd-15.11/deps/p1_cache_tab Dependency not available: p1_cache_tab-.* ({git, "https://github.com/processone/cache_tab";, "f7ea12b0ba962a3d2f9a406d2954cf7de4e27230"}) 1) I learned with my erlang-p1_utils package that we should not mark these packages as noarch, because on x86_64 systems they will get installed to /usr/lib instead of to /usr/lib64. Strangely, the test RPMs I've built with rpmbuild do not do this, but the build I released in Rawhide did. It seems that rebar does not look at /usr/lib/erlang but only /usr/lib64/erlang when searching for dependencies. 2) I don't think you will need to include the dep removal patch once I get a fixed version of p1_utils pushed out to Rawhide (sorry!). Let's remove that patch and test. 3) I think we do want to Requires erlang-erts in these packages, as it is the package that owns %{_libdir}/erlang. Note that the automated review text below was upset about not knowing who owned that folder. However, I have just submitted a new build of erlang-p1_utils that depends on erlang-erts and you depend on that package, so in this case I think you don't need to do anything. 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)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rbarlow/1295075-erlang-cache_tab/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/erlang, /usr/lib64/erlang/lib [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 [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: 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]: 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]: 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. [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: [x]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: erlang-cache_tab-1.0.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm erlang-cache_tab-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm erlang-cache_tab.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib erlang-cache_tab.src:51: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{srcname}-%{version} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory erlang-cache_tab.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- erlang-cache_tab (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): erlang-p1_utils Provides -------- erlang-cache_tab: erlang-cache_tab Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/processone/cache_tab/archive/1.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 752b649f695e9f2777efd6b2d8dfdcc1f435104b4e363f5f0454b99fd009015c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 752b649f695e9f2777efd6b2d8dfdcc1f435104b4e363f5f0454b99fd009015c Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1295075 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, 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