https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403417 --- Comment #13 from Joël Krähemann <jkraehemann@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Michael (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #8) > > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, > > as provided in the spec URL. > > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > > /home/jkraehemann/1403417-gsequencer/diff.txt > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL > > This means the source tarball included in your src.rpm does not match the > tarball as offered on your upstream download page. > This happened because I have downloaded from git tag. > > > [?]: 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. > > This refers to %{_libdir}/gsequencer/libgsequencer.so* and if it's truely a > private path not visible to the runtime linker by default, there can't be > any conflict with a system library using the same name. > It is a private library and there are no files or any path provided in /etc/ld.so.conf or /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*. The LD_LIBRARY_PATH variable isn't modified, either. > > > [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > This means: If you install any subpackage, does it depend on other packages > that include the %license text? For example, gsequencer-devel with its > explicit base "Requires" would pull in the gsequencer package. > This makes sense because the headers would be useless without the libraries. > > > [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gtk-doc, > > /usr/share/xml > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership > In the new spec 0.7.121 the /usr/share/gtk-doc is owned by gsequencer-devel-doc. For /usr/share/xml there is now a Requires xml-common. > > > [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/doc/libags-doc > > (gsequencer-devel-doc, gsequencer-devel-docs), /usr/share/doc/libags- > > audio-doc(gsequencer-devel-doc, gsequencer-devel-docs), /usr/share/doc > > /libags-audio-doc/api(gsequencer-devel-doc, gsequencer-devel-docs), > > /usr/share/doc/libags-gui-doc/api(gsequencer-devel-doc, gsequencer- > > devel-docs), /usr/share/doc/libags-doc/api(gsequencer-devel-doc, > > gsequencer-devel-docs), /usr/share/doc/libags-gui-doc(gsequencer- > > devel-doc, gsequencer-devel-docs), /usr/share/gtk-doc/html(harfbuzz- > > devel, gtk-doc) > > Same as above. And you may have to remove old build results from your Mock > buildroot. > Still unsure about that. Could you bring some clarification? > > > [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags > > If reading build.log (or compiler output during build stage), does the build > pick up the global compiler flags: see "rpm -E %optflags" > They are applied for now. CFLAGS="%{optflags}" BINDIR=%{_bindir} > > > [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries > There are no bundled libraries. > > > [?]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > > names). > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros > I do so. > > > [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Naming > gsequencer-0.7.121.tar.gz should match. > > > [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. > > A tough one to check. If not installing files with too generic file names > into common paths, such as %_bindir or %_libdir, the risk of causing > conflicts is low. In case of doubt, one may query the remote repos with > "dnf" or "repoquery" to see whether any other packages provide files with > the same path. > > > > [?]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout > I think this is up to you to ensure that. > > > [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Debuginfo_packages > It is not disabled. > > > [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures > It should work on those architectures. > > > [?]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > > (~1MB) or number of files. > > Note: Documentation size is 153600 bytes in 3 files. > > This guideline is about splitting off "large or huge documentation". See > Review Guidelines and > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > Guidelines#PackageDocumentation > The user manual is provided by the main package but the developer docs are provided in a separated package. > > > [?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > > The tough catch-all. > > > > [?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > No issue. License terms are included. It refers to: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing > They are included now. Although I can't specify the version of the GFDL. > > > [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > > This about the RPM Requires and Provides in the built packages. One can > query them, examine them and/or test them. > Still have to check. > > > [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > > gsequencer-debuginfo , gsequencer-devel-doc > > The -debuginfo package is generated automatically by rpmbuild. The -doc > subpackages usually don't need to depend on the base package if the > documentation can be viewed with an arbitrary file viewer. It would be a > different case, if they could only be displayed within the "gsequencer" > program. > This was fixed. > > > [?]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Scriptlets > The scriplets are sane. > > > [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > > architectures. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Support > Not sure. > > > [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > > files. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps > Just fixed. > > > [?]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > > is arched. > > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 9093120 bytes in /usr/share > > If the data files are not arch-specific, one may split off huge data files > into a subpackage that sets "BuildArch: noarch" and can copy the same > noarch.rpm for all target repos. 9 MB isn't so large IMO. There are much > larger data packages in the distribution. good so. Bests, Joël -- 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