https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353064 Raphael Groner <projects.rg@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg@xxxxxxxx> --- APPROVED. Please notice my hints below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-review/1353064-ignition- transport/licensecheck.txt => BSD is for gtest. Unbundle and use official gtest package? => As gtest is for execution of tests only and does get built into binary package, license is okay. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/pkgconfig(pkgconfig), /usr/include/ignition(ignition-math- devel), /usr/lib64/cmake(gtk-doc, cmake, qt5-qtlocation, phonon- qt5-devel, qt5-qtbase) => Be more specific about fiiles in pkgconfig and cmake subfolders. => Conflict with ignition-math package. Can you rename folder path to %{_includir}/%{name} to use separate location? [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. => Why disable SSE3 and SSE4? [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. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. => See conflict above with include folder. [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. [-]: 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. [?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines => Please fix above directories conflict. [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]: 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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. => Strongly recommended! You can use %make_build to magically add options. => Not sure if generation of documentation is possible in parallel. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. => Please poke upstream about the source files without license header, I can not validate them for given license. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ignition-transport-doc , ignition-transport-debuginfo => Ignore. doc subpackage is noarch, debuginfo is automagically. [x]: Package functions as described. => At least, tests pass in %check. [x]: Latest version is packaged. => Why not package 2.0.0? ignition-transport2-2.0.0-20160609-94f4417.yosemite.bottle.tar.gz [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. => Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14876744 [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ignition-transport-1.2.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm ignition-transport-devel-1.2.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm ignition-transport-doc-1.2.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm ignition-transport-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm ignition-transport-1.2.0-1.fc25.src.rpm ignition-transport.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libignition-transport1.so.1.2.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ignition-transport-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ignition-transport-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ignition-transport-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ignition-transport-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ignition-transport-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ignition-transport.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libignition-transport1.so.1.2.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 ignition-transport.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libignition-transport1.so.1.2.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- ignition-transport-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config ignition-transport(x86-64) libignition-transport1.so.1()(64bit) ignition-transport-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ignition-transport (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libprotobuf.so.9()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) libzmq.so.5()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ignition-transport-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- ignition-transport-devel: cmake(ignition-transport1) ignition-transport-devel ignition-transport-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(ignition-transport1) ignition-transport-doc: ignition-transport-doc ignition-transport: ignition-transport ignition-transport(x86-64) libignition-transport1.so.1()(64bit) ignition-transport-debuginfo: ignition-transport-debuginfo ignition-transport-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://gazebosim.org/distributions/ign-transport/releases/ignition-transport-1.2.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 80935b712aa175c7f72d66269a7c03c8db0082539fc2bea5f9e8d896754240cc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 80935b712aa175c7f72d66269a7c03c8db0082539fc2bea5f9e8d896754240cc Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1353064 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx