https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305334 --- Comment #6 from Mukundan Ragavan <nonamedotc@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Mattias Ellert from comment #2) > (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #1) > > I have a couple of questions. Please see below. > > Many thanks for reviewing. I will try to answer your questions. > > > Issues: > > ======= > > - Package installs properly. > > Note: Installation errors (see attachment) > > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines > > > > ---> This needs to be checked. > > For me this package installs correctly when running the installation test in > fedora-review. The review.txt file contains the line: > > [x]: Package installs properly. > > So I am not sure why you got an error. > > This is a noarch package, so it should work. For non-noarch packages there > is a known bug in fedora-review that causes the installation test to fail: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264803 > > It has been fixed upstream, but the fix has not been released in a package > update yet. This affects the other 3 packages, but for me the installation > test works for this one. > I have since managed to install it. No issues here. $ rpm -qa R-* R-inline-0.3.14-1.fc23.noarch R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc24.x86_64 R-core-3.2.3-2.fc23.x86_64 $ rpmlint R-inline R-inline.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inlined -> unlined, inline, inclined 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > - Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION > > > > ---> I don't see where this is. DESCRIPTION is *NOT* marked as %doc in the > > spec file ... > > DESCRIPTION should not be %doc, see e.g. the templates in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:R > > This is fedora-review complaining about something it shouldn't. I think this > is fedora-review not keeping up with changes to the guidelines. In the old > guidelines (I don't remember when the change happened - but it was quite a > long time ago now) the DESCRIPTION file was marked as %doc. > Yeah ... See comment #5. Comment fail! > > - Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires. > > Note: Missing BuildRequires on R-devel, tex(latex) > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:R > > > > ---> I think it might make more sense to use BR:R-devel instead of > > R-core-devel .. Any specific reason for using R-devel? > > R-devel is an empty package, which requires R-core-devel and R-java-devel. > There is no java needed for building this package. The only thing you "gain" > from using R-devel is to have a lot of java packages installed in the build > root for no benefit and making the build time in koji longer. > Sounds good to me. I was just checking if using the meta package would have been better. > > - The package has the standard %install section. > > Note: Package doesn't have the standard removal of *.o and *.so. > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:R > > > > ---> Can you add this section to the spec? Or, has it been intentionally > > left out? > > This is a "BuildArch: noarch" package. So there is no compilation done > during the build. This means that there are no .o or .so files created that > should be removed. So the "standard removal" would do nothing. > > You can also see in the build.log the line > > * checking if this is a source package ... OK > > If there were files present that should have been removed, this line would > not say "OK" but "NOTE" and then list all the offending files. > Yes. That looks good. > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > > Note: Mock build failed > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint > > This is a consequence of the installation failing. Since the package could > not be installed in the mock buildroot, rpmlint could not run on the > installed packages. > You do have the rpmlint results from running on the package files though: > > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Yes. I have since installed it without problems manually. fedora-review just seems to be unable to install for whatever reason. -- 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