https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398949 --- Comment #15 from MartinKG <mgansser@xxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #14) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package > contains icons. > Note: icons in bear-factory > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache > - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package > contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. > Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in bear-factory > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- > database > done > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see > attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. > > See additional comments below done, created subpkg devel > > [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. > [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (2 clause)", "BSD (2 clause) MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 > or later)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v3.0)", "Unknown or generated". > 1903 files have unknown license. > > The glew code is what's causing it to pick up BSD. I believe this code > > SHOULD be removed in prep to make sure it's not compiled or included in > > the debug package. This is more of a SHOULD than a MUST though. > done > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > This is due to a missing require, see "Requires correct" comment to fix it > > [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, /usr/share/cmake, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/lib64/bear, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, > /usr/share/icons/hicolor > [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/bear-factory/item- > description/generic/link(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear-factory/item- > description/generic/system(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear- > factory/images(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear-factory/item- > description/generic/expr(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear-factory/item- > description/generic/forced_movement(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear- > factory/item-description/generic/script(plee-the-bear), /usr/share > /bear-factory/item-description(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear-factory > /item-description/generic(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear-factory > /item-description/generic/level_variable(plee-the-bear), /usr/share > /bear-factory/item-description/generic/item_brick(plee-the-bear), > /usr/share/bear-factory/item-description/generic/game_variable(plee- > the-bear), /usr/share/bear-factory(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear- > factory/item-description/generic/shader(plee-the-bear) > > See additional comments below done > > [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]: Development files must be in a -devel package > [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [-]: The spec file handles locales properly. > [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. > Note: Package contains Conflicts: tag(s) needing fix or justification. > > See additional comments below > > [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. > [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > > You need to add the following to bear-factory: > > Requires: %{name}-engine%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > done > ===== 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). > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in bear- > engine , bear-factory , bear-debuginfo > > I've already mentioned this in the "Requires correct" comment > done > [x]: Package functions as described. > > I believe so > > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > > Close enough, please use your own discretion here. > > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > > I don't think so, but glew should be removed in prep just in case. > > [-]: 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. > [?]: 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]: 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: bear-engine-0.7.0-0.3gitac6be8b.fc25.x86_64.rpm > bear-factory-0.7.0-0.3gitac6be8b.fc25.x86_64.rpm > bear-debuginfo-0.7.0-0.3gitac6be8b.fc25.x86_64.rpm > bear-0.7.0-0.3gitac6be8b.fc25.src.rpm > bear-engine.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Runtime -> Run time, > Run-time, Rudiment > > Run-time is the correct spelling and should be used > done > bear-engine.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plee -> peel, > pee, lee > bear-engine.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asgp -> asp, > gasp, asap > bear-engine.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning > /usr/share/man/man6/running-bear.6.gz 5: warning: macro `RS' not defined > bear-engine.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning > /usr/share/man/man6/running-bear.6.gz 12: warning: macro `RE' not defined > bear-factory.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning > /usr/share/man/man1/bf-model-editor.1.gz 5: warning: macro `RS' not defined > bear-factory.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning > /usr/share/man/man1/bf-model-editor.1.gz 12: warning: macro `RE' not defined > bear-factory.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning > /usr/share/man/man1/bf-level-editor.1.gz 5: warning: macro `RS' not defined > bear-factory.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning > /usr/share/man/man1/bf-level-editor.1.gz 12: warning: macro `RE' not defined > bear-factory.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning > /usr/share/man/man1/bf-animation-editor.1.gz 5: warning: macro `RS' not > defined > bear-factory.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning > /usr/share/man/man1/bf-animation-editor.1.gz 12: warning: macro `RE' not > defined > bear-factory.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary image-cutter > bear-factory.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bend-image > > I would advice to querying upstream to fix the manpage issues, but this is a "SHOULD" > upstream bug report https://github.com/j-jorge/bear/issues/7 > Addition Comments > ----------------- > I'm not opposed to how this is packaged and this should be fine until > upstream fixes it, but it's critical that plee-the-bear's maintainers also > agree with this, as they need to unbundle it. Furthermore, if everything > goes well, you need to make sure that plee-the-bear and bear-* packages are > pushed all in one bodhi update, which you will need to collaborate with them > on as well. Please see bug #1403607. I have some doubts that the developer of plee-the-bear changes this. > > Also, I can't reproduce the build conflicts issue I was having before, so > I'm assuming this was just a mock bug/glitch. I'll make a bug with them if I > can figure out how to reproduce it again. ok, many thanks. New Package: Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/bear.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/bear-0.7.0-0.4gitac6be8b.fc25.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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx