https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450679 --- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> --- A few problems still. See my comments inline below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: laby : /usr/share/laby/mods/c/lib/robot.h laby : /usr/share/laby/mods/cpp/lib/robot.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages This is explained in the spec file and is not a problem. - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel I think this is bogus and can be ignored. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "GPL", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 97 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rjones/1450679-laby/licensecheck.txt I checked the licenses and is does appear that the author intends GPLv3+. I guess you could ask upstream to use proper per-file GPL headers instead of ones they appear to have made up, but it's not urgent. There does not appear to be any problematic content. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Yes, in /usr/share/licenses/laby/gpl-3.0.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. OCaml package, so not applicable. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required Please remove rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of the %install section. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package See comment in source about the header file. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. The Requires lines should be removed. The final binary will contain statically-linked copies of ocaml-lablgtk and gtksourceview2. It dynamically links to the C libs gtk etc. There is no need to pull in those packages at runtime at all. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in laby [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Did you try enabling this? If it works it should be used. If the build system is broken for parallel builds (not uncommon, unfortunately) it may be worth adding a comment in the spec file. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). See above about Requires. The other (generated) requires / provides of the package are correct. [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in laby- debuginfo I don't know what fedora-review means by this, but as far as I know this is not necessary. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. Latest available is 0.6.4, same as version being packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. We will find out when you build this in Rawhide. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. There don't appear to be any tests provided upstream. [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]: 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: laby-0.6.4-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm laby-debuginfo-0.6.4-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm laby-0.6.4-3.fc27.src.rpm laby.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib laby.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id laby.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id laby.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/laby/mods/c/lib/robot.c laby.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/laby/mods/c/lib/robot.h laby.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/laby/mods/cpp/lib/robot.cpp laby.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/laby/mods/cpp/lib/robot.h laby.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/laby/mods/ocaml/lib/robot.ml The following seem to be real problems. The files in the RPMs are really zero length, which seems like it is wrong: laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/carry-exit.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/drop-no-space.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/drop-nothing.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/exit-in.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/no-exit.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/rock-in.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/rock-take.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/start.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/take-no-space.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/take-nothing.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/wall-in.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/web-in.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/web-out.wav laby.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary laby 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 9 warnings. Apart from the *.wav files, all other warnings can be ignored. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: laby-debuginfo-0.6.4-3.fc27.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 laby.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib laby.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id laby.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id laby.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/laby/mods/c/lib/robot.c laby.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/laby/mods/c/lib/robot.h laby.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/laby/mods/cpp/lib/robot.cpp laby.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/laby/mods/cpp/lib/robot.h laby.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/laby/mods/ocaml/lib/robot.ml laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/carry-exit.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/drop-no-space.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/drop-nothing.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/exit-in.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/no-exit.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/rock-in.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/rock-take.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/start.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/take-no-space.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/take-nothing.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/wall-in.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/web-in.wav laby.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/laby/sound/web-out.wav laby.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary laby 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 9 warnings. Requires -------- laby (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh gtksourceview2 libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtksourceview-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) ocaml-lablgtk rtld(GNU_HASH) laby-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- laby: appdata() appdata(laby.appdata.xml) application() application(laby.desktop) laby laby(x86-64) laby-debuginfo: laby-debuginfo laby-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sgimenez/laby/archive/laby-0.6.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ce43990f6f581ca1624989010a00bcdbad7a6635f438b9de5113075a9272d93f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ce43990f6f581ca1624989010a00bcdbad7a6635f438b9de5113075a9272d93f Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1450679 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, 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
