https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167175 --- Comment #4 from Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola@xxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. 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. - License is GPLv2+, not GPLv2. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. - Build with 'make %{?_smp_mflags} VERBOSE=1' so that flags become visible. [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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros. - As noted above, please fix macros. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. - No explicit requires as noted above. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines - Fix issues above. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. - Removing the buildroot has not been necessary since RHEL 5. [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]: 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: [-]: 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. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: CheMPS2-1.7-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm CheMPS2-devel-1.7-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm CheMPS2-python-1.7-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm CheMPS2-debuginfo-1.7-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm CheMPS2-1.7-1.fc23.src.rpm CheMPS2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) initio -> initiation CheMPS2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US renormalization -> re normalization, re-normalization, normalization CheMPS2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initio -> initiation CheMPS2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib CheMPS2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation CheMPS2-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation CheMPS2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) initio -> initiation CheMPS2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US renormalization -> re normalization, re-normalization, normalization CheMPS2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initio -> initiation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: CheMPS2-debuginfo-1.7-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- CheMPS2.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libchemps2.so.2 /lib64/libhdf5_hl.so.10 CheMPS2.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libchemps2.so.2 /lib64/libz.so.1 CheMPS2.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libchemps2.so.2 /lib64/libdl.so.2 CheMPS2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib CheMPS2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation CheMPS2-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. - You could try fixing the shlib dependency warning with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency Requires -------- CheMPS2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig atlas libc.so.6()(64bit) libchemps2.so.2()(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) 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) libhdf5.so.10()(64bit) libhdf5_hl.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtatlas.so.3()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) CheMPS2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): CheMPS2(x86-64) libchemps2.so.2()(64bit) CheMPS2-python (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): CheMPS2(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libchemps2.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) CheMPS2-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- CheMPS2: CheMPS2 CheMPS2(x86-64) libchemps2.so.2()(64bit) CheMPS2-devel: CheMPS2-devel CheMPS2-devel(x86-64) CheMPS2-python: CheMPS2-python CheMPS2-python(x86-64) CheMPS2-debuginfo: CheMPS2-debuginfo CheMPS2-debuginfo(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- CheMPS2-python: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/PyCheMPS2.so - I think this should be OK since it's a python module. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/SebWouters/CheMPS2/archive/v1.7.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 78528aac83f6dc32452e19b7b7905e2b6af1be99e76c8f75e0d15857b8ae8b89 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 979fd459ce5288e169f749e152e2454b49f6cde9d760dadf3f4e32bbc6d8ff85 diff -r also reports differences - Please double check your source. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx