https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451407 Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(nickc@xxxxxxxxxx) --- Comment #3 from Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Apologies for the delay on this. Things got hectic. tl;dr: work needed (see Issues:) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - Some content found to have MIT/X11 (BSD like) licenses. This needs to be in the License: field - Why are you explicitly excluding the LICENSE and COPYING3 files? Those need to be installed with the %license macro - This package does not own some of the directories it requires or alternately depend on a package that requires it. In all likelihood, you need to have this package `Requires: gcc` to ensure that its directory structure is properly owned. I also doubt anyone would want to install this plugin without also having gcc available. - /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/7/plugin is also owned by gcc-gdb-plugin. This is *not* a blocker, but it's worth asking the gcc folks if they should just have this owned by some common package if it's going to start being used by multiple plugins. - Drop the %clean section; it's not required on any supported version of Fedora or EPEL anymore ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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. [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. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)". 43 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /dev/shm/1451407-annobin/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat- linux/7, /usr/lib/gcc, /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat- linux/7/plugin(gcc-gdb-plugin) [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. [-]: 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. [!]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in annobin- debuginfo [?]: 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]: 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: [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: annobin-1.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm annobin-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm annobin-1.0-1.fc27.src.rpm annobin.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0-1.fc26 ['1.0-1.fc27', '1.0-1'] annobin.x86_64: W: no-documentation annobin.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id annobin.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id annobin.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary built-by.sh annobin.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary check-abi.sh annobin.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hardened.sh annobin.src: W: strange-permission annobin-1.0.tar.xz 660 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: annobin-debuginfo-1.0-1.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 annobin.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0-1.fc26 ['1.0-1.fc27', '1.0-1'] annobin.x86_64: W: no-documentation annobin.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id annobin.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id annobin.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary built-by.sh annobin.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary check-abi.sh annobin.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hardened.sh 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Requires -------- annobin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) annobin-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- annobin: annobin annobin(x86-64) annobin-debuginfo: annobin-debuginfo annobin-debuginfo(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- annobin: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/7/plugin/annobin.so Source checksums ---------------- https://nickc.fedorapeople.org/annobin-1.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b2e232a91158f9e949655375281fd091c360b3cfae51e561997d635dec3ac1ed CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b2e232a91158f9e949655375281fd091c360b3cfae51e561997d635dec3ac1ed Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1451407 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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 -- 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
