https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025 --- Comment #3 from Michal Schorm <mschorm@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Here is the list of issues that MUST and SHOULD be fixed: MUST * Build flag %opt_flags missing and no justification present. * Latest version is packaked: latest version available from upstream GIT is 4.9. https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/releases Where the 4.11 version come from? * rpmlint output: rocksdb.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librocksdb.so.4.11.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 library should not quit with exit or maybe it shouldn't be a library ? SHOULD * Included patch doesn't match app version * Included patch doesn't link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. * %check not present * description contain 2 typos: Typo: "compactions" -> "compaction" Typo: "multi-threaded" -> "multithreaded" * Documentation should be added or upstream should be queried to create some. * It would be nice to add licence file to -debuginfo subpackage as it can be installed as a standalone package. * In specfile, Source0 should be changed from "...zip/4.11.fb#/%{name}-%{version}.fb.zip" to "...zip/%{name}.%{version}.fb#/%{name}-%{version}.fb.zip" * Same for Patch0, after it will be updated to matching version * BuildRequires should be aligned with equal number of whitespaces 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]: 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. Note: BSD licence in standalone licence file [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Note: use opt_flags macro [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. (only FOSS) [-]: 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. [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 are correct, justified where necessary. Note: whitespace [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. Note: Typo: "compactions" -> "compaction" Note: Typo: "multi-threaded" -> "multithreaded" Note: no documentation. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. (Source codes bundled) [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]: 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. [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]: 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 ===== 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. [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: %check SHOULD be added [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot macro 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). 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: rocksdb-4.11-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm rocksdb-devel-4.11-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm rocksdb-debuginfo-4.11-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm rocksdb-4.11-1.fc24.src.rpm rocksdb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti rocksdb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compactions -> compaction, comp actions, comp-actions rocksdb.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librocksdb.so.4.11.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 rocksdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation rocksdb-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib rocksdb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation rocksdb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti rocksdb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compactions -> compaction, comp actions, comp-actions 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: rocksdb-debuginfo-4.11-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory rocksdb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti rocksdb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compactions -> compaction, comp actions, comp-actions rocksdb.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/librocksdb.so.4.11.0 /lib64/libgflags.so.2.1 rocksdb.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librocksdb.so.4.11.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 rocksdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation rocksdb-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib rocksdb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Requires -------- rocksdb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgflags.so.2.1()(64bit) libjemalloc.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libsnappy.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rocksdb-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): librocksdb.so.4.11()(64bit) rocksdb(x86-64) rocksdb-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- rocksdb: librocksdb.so.4.11()(64bit) rocksdb rocksdb(x86-64) rocksdb-devel: rocksdb-devel rocksdb-devel(x86-64) rocksdb-debuginfo: rocksdb-debuginfo rocksdb-debuginfo(x86-64) ------- Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 Source checksums ---------------- https://codeload.github.com/facebook/rocksdb/zip/4.11.fb#/rocksdb-4.11.fb.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a024de949fd113eb1c25704581c729abd78c903b5c2ea811ce88cfadc1550590 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a024de949fd113eb1c25704581c729abd78c903b5c2ea811ce88cfadc1550590 -- 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