https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064657 --- Comment #14 from Mukundan Ragavan <nonamedotc@xxxxxxxxx> --- Detailed review below. 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 ---> Installs fine. $ rpm -qa exciting* exciting-common-10-1.fc23.x86_64 exciting-openmpi-10-1.fc23.x86_64 exciting-10-1.fc23.x86_64 exciting-species-10-1.fc23.noarch exciting-mpich-10-1.fc23.x86_64 - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL ---> Can you please check this? ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later) GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 992 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/licensecheck.txt ---> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ---> Present in -common. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/profile.d ---> /etc/profile.d is definitely owned! [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. [x]: 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 [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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Perl: [?]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) missing? ---> Can you please check this? ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ---> license in included. All is good. [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 exciting-openmpi , exciting-mpich , exciting-species , exciting-common , exciting-debuginfo ---> This looks good. base package versioned requires on -species -openmpi has versioned requires on -species -mpich has versioned requires on -species -species has versioned requires on -common In other words, everything looks good. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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 ---> This is not an issue. No issues installing and no new rpmlint issues when run on installed packages. Changing to [x]. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1863680 bytes in /usr/share ---> This looks fine. [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/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-openmpi-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-mpich-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-species-10-1.fc23.noarch.rpm /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-common-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-debuginfo-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-debuginfo-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-23-x86_64/root/ --releasever 23 --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-openmpi-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-mpich-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-species-10-1.fc23.noarch.rpm /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-common-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-debuginfo-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1064657-exciting/results/exciting-debuginfo-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: exciting-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm exciting-openmpi-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm exciting-mpich-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm exciting-species-10-1.fc23.noarch.rpm exciting-common-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm exciting-debuginfo-10-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm exciting-10-1.fc23.src.rpm exciting.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearized -> realized exciting.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US planewave -> plane wave, plane-wave, warplane exciting.x86_64: W: no-documentation exciting.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary excitingsmp exciting.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary excitingser exciting-openmpi.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C exciting - openmpi version exciting-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearized -> realized exciting-openmpi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US planewave -> plane wave, plane-wave, warplane exciting-openmpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation exciting-mpich.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C exciting - mpich version exciting-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearized -> realized exciting-mpich.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US planewave -> plane wave, plane-wave, warplane exciting-mpich.x86_64: W: no-documentation exciting-species.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C exciting - species files exciting-species.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearized -> realized exciting-species.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US planewave -> plane wave, plane-wave, warplane exciting-species.noarch: W: no-documentation exciting-common.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C exciting - common files exciting-common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearized -> realized exciting-common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US planewave -> plane wave, plane-wave, warplane exciting-common.x86_64: W: no-documentation exciting-common.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/exciting/xml/inputfileconverter/basevec2abc.xsl exciting-common.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exciting-stateinfo exciting-common.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exciting-species exciting-common.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exciting-stateconvert exciting-common.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exciting-spacegroup exciting.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linearized -> realized exciting.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US planewave -> plane wave, plane-wave, warplane exciting.src: W: file-size-mismatch exciting.boron-10.tar.gz = 14088080, http://exciting.wdfiles.com/local--files/boron/exciting.boron-10.tar.gz = 404 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 28 warnings. ---> Most of these are bogus. The big issue is checksum mismatch for the source tarball. Please check. Requires -------- exciting-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /usr/bin/python config(exciting-common) libFoX_common.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_dom.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_fsys.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_sax.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_utils.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wcml.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wxml.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfftw3.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopenblas.so.0()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) exciting-mpich (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): exciting-species libFoX_common.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_dompp.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_fsys.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_sax.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_utils.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wcml.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wkml.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wxml.so.0()(64bit) libarpack.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfftw3.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpi.so.12()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libmpifort.so.12()(64bit)(mpich-x86_64) libopenblas.so.0()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0()(64bit) libxc.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) exciting-openmpi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): exciting-species libFoX_common.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_dompp.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_fsys.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_sax.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_utils.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wcml.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wkml.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wxml.so.0()(64bit) libarpack.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfftw3.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmpi.so.1()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libmpi_mpifh.so.2()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libmpi_usempi_ignore_tkr.so.0()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libmpi_usempif08.so.0()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) libopenblas.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0()(64bit) libxc.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) exciting-species (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh exciting-common exciting-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): exciting (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): exciting-species libFoX_common.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_dompp.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_fsys.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_sax.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_utils.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wcml.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wkml.so.0()(64bit) libFoX_wxml.so.0()(64bit) libarpack.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfftw3.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3()(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.0)(64bit) libgfortran.so.3(GFORTRAN_1.4)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopenblas.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libquadmath.so.0()(64bit) libxc.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- exciting-common: config(exciting-common) exciting-common exciting-common(x86-64) exciting-mpich: exciting-mpich exciting-mpich(x86-64) exciting-openmpi: exciting-openmpi exciting-openmpi(x86-64) exciting-species: exciting-species exciting-debuginfo: exciting-debuginfo exciting-debuginfo(x86-64) exciting: exciting exciting(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://exciting.wdfiles.com/local--files/boron/exciting.boron-10.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8112605a9f3e1ea693c2638fd45fbcf87885aa96d74683335a06909e349a0bfc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : eabe424dd70c56173c2cfcfe8ca6b328ef2077d6ce9b3243540148a2d76f20ab diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-23-x86_64 -b 1064657 Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, 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