https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552 --- Comment #3 from Christoph Junghans <junghans@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #2) > Issues: > ======= > - Dist tag is NOT present. Done > - Release should start at '1'. Done > - Please justify your strange naming convention Following Debian and OpenSuse! There was an exodus v1 and this is exodus v2, hence exodusII > - Is there any point in having the Fortran library in a separate package? Its > dependencies are identical to the C library except it also depends on the C > library. Combined > - %defattr(-,root,root,-) is already the default, please drop it Done > - SONAMEs for the libraries are unversioned, which is dangerous to the > consumers Added a patch from OpenSue to fix that. > - license texts are not included as %license (exodus/COPYRIGHT and > nemesis/COPYRIGHT) Done > - License: tag should be just BSD Done > - the READMEs are also worth including as %doc Done > - the paper about Exodus and the manual are also worth including, maybe in a > separate -doc subpackage: > http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/1992/922137.pdf > http://endo.sandia.gov/SEACAS/Documentation/exodusII.pdf I could do that > - CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX, CMAKE_C_FLAGS_RELEASE, CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE > are already set by %cmake macro, please drop them. Done > - you don't need to set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE Done > - Group: tag is invalid. Please either drop it (it's optional) or use a valid > group name Done > - No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in exodusii-devel Done > - %changelog is empty. The first entry should be something like "initial > package". Done > - Upstream seems to be here: https://github.com/gsjaardema/seacas#exodus > and no versions are listed. Why are you packaging source tarball from > gentoo > distfiles instead of upstream snapshot? Please correct the URL tag, too. seacas has a different API and the link to the tarball on the github page actaully not pointing to exodus, but back to seacas. > - There's a testsuite (make check), but it requires /bin/csh to be present > to run. Please add it to BR and add a %check section. You may need to set > LD_LIBRARY_PATH accordingly. Also, Done > ===== MUST items ===== > [!]: 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. Done > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 35 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/rathann/build/review/1336552-exodusii/licensecheck.txt DOne > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Done > [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Done > [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: %defattr present but not needed Done > [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Done ? > [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. N/A > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Done > ===== SHOULD items ===== > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > libexoIIv2c , libexoIIv2for , exodusii-devel , exodusii-debuginfo Done > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Done New SPRM URL: https://github.com/junghans/fedora-review/raw/master/exodusii/exodusii-6.02-1.fc24.src.rpm -- 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