https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366687 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I could no reproduce it locally with a newer gcc. Anyway with the work-around everything seems ok for el6. 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]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [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. [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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gnutls30-debuginfo [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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: 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]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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. [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: gnutls30-3.5.3-3.fc24.i686.rpm gnutls30-dane-3.5.3-3.fc24.i686.rpm gnutls30-devel-3.5.3-3.fc24.i686.rpm gnutls30-debuginfo-3.5.3-3.fc24.i686.rpm gnutls30-3.5.3-3.fc24.src.rpm gnutls30.i686: E: shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib/libgnutls.so.30.9.0 gnutls30.i686: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-gnutls-1 /usr/lib/libgnutlsxx.so.28.1.0 gnutls_priority_set_direct gnutls30-dane.i686: W: no-documentation gnutls30-devel.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gnutls30.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{srcname} gnutls30.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version} gnutls30.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{srcname} gnutls30.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version} gnutls30.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gnutls-3.5.3-hobbled.tar.xz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Requires -------- gnutls30-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnutls30 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgmp.so.10 libgnutls.so.30 libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4) libhogweed.so.4 libhogweed.so.4(HOGWEED_4) libidn.so.11 libidn.so.11(LIBIDN_1.0) libm.so.6 libnettle.so.6 libnettle.so.6(NETTLE_6) libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9) libz.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) gnutls30-dane (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig gnutls30(x86-32) libc.so.6 libgnutls.so.30 libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_PRIVATE_3_4) libunbound.so.2 rtld(GNU_HASH) gnutls30-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnutls30(x86-32) gnutls30-dane(x86-32) libgnutls-dane.so.0 libgnutls.so.30 libgnutlsxx.so.28 Provides -------- gnutls30-debuginfo: gnutls30-debuginfo gnutls30-debuginfo(x86-32) gnutls30: bundled(gnulib) bundled(libtasn1) gnutls30 gnutls30(x86-32) libgnutls.so.30 libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_3_4) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_FIPS140_3_4) libgnutls.so.30(GNUTLS_PRIVATE_3_4) libgnutlsxx.so.28 gnutls30-dane: gnutls30-dane gnutls30-dane(x86-32) libgnutls-dane.so.0 libgnutls-dane.so.0(DANE_0_0) gnutls30-devel: gnutls30-devel gnutls30-devel(x86-32) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1366687 Buildroot used: fedora-24-i386 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