https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Comment #4 from James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> --- Initial review at this time: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: watchman-2.spec should be watchman.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name - Third party libraries are statically embedded in the binary https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Statically_Linking_Executables - The static library license is not declared in the SPEC license field - Directory /usr/share/doc/watchman-4.7.0 is not owned - Either use %doc and let it copy over to the right location or set %doc at the start of the path to where documentation is installed, don't do both in %files - The v in %changelog should not be there, only the number eg 4.7.0-3 not v4.7.0-3 - %install must not have the rm -rf line - The spec in your review must match the spec in the srpm for the review ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like) BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (unspecified)", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 235 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora- scm/1450590-watchman-2/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/watchman-4.7.0 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/watchman-4.7.0 [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [!]: 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 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 [!]: 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. [!]: 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in watchman-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: watchman-4.7.0-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm watchman-debuginfo-4.7.0-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm watchman-4.7.0-3.fc27.src.rpm watchman.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog v4.7.0-3 ['4.7.0-3.fc27', '4.7.0-3'] watchman.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id watchman.x86_64: E: world-writable /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary watchman 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: watchman-debuginfo-4.7.0-3.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 watchman.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog v4.7.0-3 ['4.7.0-3.fc27', '4.7.0-3'] watchman.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id watchman.x86_64: E: world-writable /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary watchman 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/james/workspace/fedora-scm/1450590-watchman-2/srpm/watchman-2.spec 2017-05-23 10:34:11.533362298 +0100 +++ /home/james/workspace/fedora-scm/1450590-watchman-2/srpm-unpacked/watchman.spec 2017-05-17 18:50:45.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ Name: watchman Version: 4.7.0 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} Summary: A file watching service @@ -8,4 +8,7 @@ Source0: https://github.com/facebook/watchman/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/watchman-%{version}.tar.gz +# https://github.com/facebook/watchman/issues/467 +Patch0: watchman-4.7.0-fallthrough.patch + BuildRequires: autoconf automake pcre-devel Requires: pcre @@ -42,4 +45,6 @@ %changelog +* Wed May 17 2017 Matthew Smith <asymptotically508@xxxxxxxxx> - v4.7.0-3 +- Add patch to fix builds with GCC 7 * Sun May 14 2017 Matthew Smith <asymptotically508@xxxxxxxxx> - v4.7.0-2 - Disable Python bindings Requires -------- watchman-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): watchman (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpcre.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) pcre rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- watchman-debuginfo: watchman-debuginfo watchman-debuginfo(x86-64) watchman: watchman watchman(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/facebook/watchman/archive/v4.7.0.tar.gz#/watchman-4.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 77c7174c59d6be5e17382e414db4907a298ca187747c7fcb2ceb44da3962c6bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 77c7174c59d6be5e17382e414db4907a298ca187747c7fcb2ceb44da3962c6bf Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1450590 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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 _____________________________________________________________________ There's no need to list Patch in your comment, just the spec and srpm. The static library issue is the major issue that needs to be worked out, the rest is just minor spec tweaks, you may need to open an issue upstream for assistance in avoiding the static library problem and open review requests for any library that is unbundled that isn't already in Fedora. Until that is sorted out, this is NOT APPROVED -- 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
