https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426465 --- Comment #2 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> --- > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 1290240 bytes in 113 files. > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation > > - Please, separate HTML docs in a noarch sub-package. It doesn't specify that 1Mb is considered large it just states "Or if there's a lot of documentation, consider putting it into a subpackage. In this case, it is recommended to use *-doc as the subpackage name." I don't consider 1.2Mb large enough to move from -devel to a separate package. If it was 10s of Mb sure. > - Many source files are licensed under a LGPLv2+ license. > I guess it's correct using LGPLv2+ as main license. OK. Will update > - __pycache__ looks not recognized as property of this package What do you mean by that? > - You don't need to use %doc. HTML documentation is already in > %_pkgdocdir directory. Sure, but what problem does this cause? > - Fix wrong Python interpreter: > python3-iio.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter > /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/iio.py /usr/bin/env python > python3-iio.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/iio.py 644 /usr/bin/env python > > - You can compile the example files inside 'examples' directory (needs > 'cdk-devel' package): Sure, but I do see them as providing much value as actual binaries hence I didn't. Could possibly include them in -devel as source, but again not sure that provides much value. > sed -e 's|cdk/cdk.h|cdk.h|g' -i examples/iio-monitor.c > make CFLAGS="%optflags -I../ -I%{_includedir}" LDFLAGS="%__global_ldflags > -L../ -liio" -C examples > > ===== 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. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or > generated". 46 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1426465-libiio/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site- > packages, /usr/lib/python3.6 > [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.6/site- > packages/__pycache__(python36) > [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. > [-]: 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. > [-]: 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. > [-]: 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]: 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]: 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 > > Python: > [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build > process. > [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should > provide egg info. > [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep > > ===== 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. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libiio- > debuginfo > [ ]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [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. > [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [ ]: %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]: 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: > [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1310720 bytes in /usr/share > [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: libiio-0.9-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm > libiio-utils-0.9-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm > libiio-devel-0.9-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm > python3-iio-0.9-1.fc26.noarch.rpm > libiio-debuginfo-0.9-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm > libiio-0.9-1.fc26.src.rpm > libiio-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation > libiio-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iio_info > libiio-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iio_genxml > libiio-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iio_adi_xflow_check > libiio-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iio_reg > libiio-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iio_readdev > libiio-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iiod > libiio-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > python3-iio.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libiio -> libido > python3-iio.noarch: W: no-documentation > python3-iio.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter > /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/iio.py /usr/bin/env python > python3-iio.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/iio.py 644 /usr/bin/env python > 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (debuginfo) > ------------------- > Checking: libiio-debuginfo-0.9-1.fc26.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 > libiio.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libiio.so.0.9 > /lib64/liblzma.so.5 > libiio.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libiio.so.0.9 > /lib64/libz.so.1 > libiio.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libiio.so.0.9 > /lib64/libm.so.6 > libiio-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > python3-iio.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libiio -> libido > python3-iio.noarch: W: no-documentation > python3-iio.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter > /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/iio.py /usr/bin/env python > python3-iio.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/iio.py 644 /usr/bin/env python > libiio-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation > libiio-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iio_adi_xflow_check > libiio-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iio_genxml > libiio-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iio_info > libiio-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iio_readdev > libiio-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iio_reg > libiio-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iiod > 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings. > > > > Requires > -------- > libiio (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /sbin/ldconfig > libc.so.6()(64bit) > liblzma.so.5()(64bit) > libm.so.6()(64bit) > libpthread.so.0()(64bit) > librt.so.1()(64bit) > libxml2.so.2()(64bit) > libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) > libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit) > libz.so.1()(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > libiio-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > libiio-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/pkg-config > libiio(x86-64) > libiio.so.0()(64bit) > > python3-iio (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > libiio(x86-64) > python(abi) > > libiio-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > libc.so.6()(64bit) > libiio(x86-64) > libiio.so.0()(64bit) > libpthread.so.0()(64bit) > rtld(GNU_HASH) > > > > Provides > -------- > libiio: > libiio > libiio(x86-64) > libiio.so.0()(64bit) > > libiio-debuginfo: > libiio-debuginfo > libiio-debuginfo(x86-64) > > libiio-devel: > libiio-devel > libiio-devel(x86-64) > pkgconfig(libiio) > > python3-iio: > python3-iio > python3.6dist(libiio) > python3dist(libiio) > > libiio-utils: > libiio-utils > libiio-utils(x86-64) > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/libiio/archive/v0.9.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > b6184876d192fbfd51e3a0a29736fa1be2dbaf07370cf861797076f40a85f823 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > b6184876d192fbfd51e3a0a29736fa1be2dbaf07370cf861797076f40a85f823 > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-options=--no-clean -m > fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1426465 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ > Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx