https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1439178 James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Comment #1 from James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - 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/james/workspace /fedora-scm/1439178-quazip-qt5/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL * Can you please confirm the source of your tarball as it differs from upstream 27e4316e41b4368e30f4d013a2fe8010 1439178-quazip-qt5/upstream-unpacked/Source0/quazip-0.7.3.tar.gz 2ba7dd8b1d6dd588374c9fab5c46e76e 1439178-quazip-qt5/srpm-unpacked/quazip-0.7.3.tar.gz - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text * %license works on EPEL7 so it should be used rather than %doc - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1474560 bytes in 204 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation * The doc is in devel so I consider this one optional, but it'd be good practice to move to -doc (or -devel-doc if it's only dev related) - Spec states LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ but the README and COPYING files indicate LGPL 2.1 * Please confirm the copyright status and update the spec header accordingly - There are unowned directories included which need to be owned properly * Either the -devel package needs to require cmake3-data (which feels wrong given development doesn't require cmake) or the -devel package needs to own /usr/share/cmake3 and /usr/share/cmake3/Modules. * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories ===== 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: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 264 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora- scm/1439178-quazip-qt5/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/cmake3/Modules, /usr/share/cmake3 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/cmake3, /usr/share/cmake3/Modules [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. [!]: 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]: 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]: 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 ===== 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 quazip- qt5-devel , quazip-qt5-debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [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]: 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 1658880 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: quazip-qt5-0.7.3-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm quazip-qt5-devel-0.7.3-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm quazip-qt5-debuginfo-0.7.3-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm quazip-qt5-0.7.3-1.el7.centos.src.rpm quazip-qt5.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minizip -> mini zip, mini-zip, minimize quazip-qt5.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7.3-1 ['0.7.3-1.el7.centos', '0.7.3-1.centos'] quazip-qt5-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib quazip-qt5.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minizip -> mini zip, mini-zip, minimize quazip-qt5.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 1) quazip-qt5.src: W: file-size-mismatch quazip-0.7.3.tar.gz = 439536, http://downloads.sourceforge.net/quazip-qt5/quazip-0.7.3.tar.gz = 44064 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: quazip-qt5-debuginfo-0.7.3-1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- quazip-qt5.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.7.3-1 ['0.7.3-1.el7.centos', '0.7.3-1.centos'] quazip-qt5.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libquazip5.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 quazip-qt5-debuginfo.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- quazip-qt5-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libquazip5.so.1()(64bit) qt5-qtbase-devel(x86-64) quazip-qt5(x86-64) quazip-qt5 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.6)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) quazip-qt5-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- quazip-qt5-devel: quazip-qt5-devel quazip-qt5-devel(x86-64) quazip-qt5: libquazip5.so.1()(64bit) quazip-qt5 quazip-qt5(x86-64) quazip-qt5-debuginfo: quazip-qt5-debuginfo quazip-qt5-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/quazip-qt5/quazip-0.7.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2ad4f354746e8260d46036cde1496c223ec79765041ea28eb920ced015e269b5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 08532f169720923a8948c288687d3cb970e5c9595e2179356e00ed52b45b4eff diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m epel-7-x86_64 -b 1439178 Buildroot used: epel-7-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 ==== Summary ===== The license, directory ownership and tarball differing are the blockers. The -doc is an optional nicety. For those reasons this is NOT APPROVED ... fix them up and it'll be fine. -- 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
