https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470842 --- Comment #1 from Zamir SUN <sztsian@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi, I think you need major fix for this package. IMO we do not allow binary file in package but there are many JAR files in source. Besides, if you want to use ./compile.sh to build, you need to write clear justification why in the SPEC file. Some files is with bad permission (555 while it is not actually for execute). See rpmlint details below. This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - 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 unzip gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: 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)", "Apache (v2.0) NTP", "Unknown or generated". 364 files have unknown license. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: Especially check following dirs for bundled code: third_party [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 81920 bytes in 5 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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: [ ]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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 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: bazel-0.5.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm bazel-0.5.2-1.fc25.src.rpm bazel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) scalable -> salable, callable, calculable bazel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti bazel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/bazel bazel.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/CONTRIBUTING.md 555 bazel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/CONTRIBUTING.md bazel.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/CHANGELOG.md 555 bazel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/CHANGELOG.md bazel.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/CONTRIBUTORS 555 bazel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/CONTRIBUTORS bazel.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/licenses/bazel/LICENSE 555 bazel.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/bazel/LICENSE bazel.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/AUTHORS 555 bazel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/AUTHORS bazel.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/README.md 555 bazel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/README.md bazel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bazel bazel.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) scalable -> salable, callable, calculable bazel.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- bazel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) scalable -> salable, callable, calculable bazel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti bazel.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/bazel bazel.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/CONTRIBUTING.md 555 bazel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/CONTRIBUTING.md bazel.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/licenses/bazel/LICENSE 555 bazel.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/bazel/LICENSE bazel.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/CONTRIBUTORS 555 bazel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/CONTRIBUTORS bazel.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/AUTHORS 555 bazel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/AUTHORS bazel.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/CHANGELOG.md 555 bazel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/CHANGELOG.md bazel.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/README.md 555 bazel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/bazel/README.md bazel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bazel 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 9 warnings. Requires -------- bazel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- bazel: bazel bazel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/releases/download/0.5.2/bazel-0.5.2-dist.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2418c619bdd44257a170b85b9d2ecb75def29e751b725e27186468ada2e009ea CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2418c619bdd44257a170b85b9d2ecb75def29e751b725e27186468ada2e009ea Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1470842 Buildroot used: fedora-25-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
