https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022 Ye Cheng <18969068329@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |18969068329@xxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Ye Cheng <18969068329@xxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #0) This is an unofficial review. 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: coreutils gcc make See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 - Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/preeny The directory is supposed to be owned by this package. Please add %{_libdir}/%{name} to /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ (and run ldconfig) if it is intended for ld to find the installed libraries. - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Note : %{?__global_ldflags} Linker flag relro and now may alter the behaviour of the application being debugged but now linker flag could potentially help to reveal the issue earlier. Addition of LDFLAGS="%{?__global_ldflags}" doesn't break the compilation. - %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream shipped 3 tests in /tests directory. - Requires correct, justified where necessary. libini_config is required (but not listed) at runtime. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: 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. Please ignore this, because it will be quite tedious for user to type the full versioned soname and parallel installation of multiple version will be rare. The missing soname will unlikely become a issue because this library can be linked manually by path. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in ~/1479022-preeny/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/preeny [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/preeny [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Note : global_ldflags not honored. [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]: 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 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]: Permissions on files are set properly. [-]: 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: [x]: 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 preeny- 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. [?]: 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: [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: preeny-0.1-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm preeny-debuginfo-0.1-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm preeny-0.1-1.fc26.src.rpm preeny.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preload -> reload, p reload, freeload preeny.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pwning -> owning, pawning, pining preeny.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pwn -> own, pen, pawn preeny.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US noobs -> nubs, boons, boobs preeny.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preload -> reload, p reload, freeload preeny.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pwning -> owning, pawning, pining preeny.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pwn -> own, pen, pawn preeny.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US noobs -> nubs, boons, boobs 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: preeny-debuginfo-0.1-1.fc26.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 preeny.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preload -> reload, p reload, freeload preeny.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pwning -> owning, pawning, pining preeny.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pwn -> own, pen, pawn preeny.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US noobs -> nubs, boons, boobs 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- preeny (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) preeny-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- preeny: preeny preeny(x86-64) preeny-debuginfo: preeny-debuginfo preeny-debuginfo(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- preeny: /usr/lib64/preeny/dealarm.so preeny: /usr/lib64/preeny/defork.so preeny: /usr/lib64/preeny/deptrace.so preeny: /usr/lib64/preeny/derand.so preeny: /usr/lib64/preeny/desigact.so preeny: /usr/lib64/preeny/desleep.so preeny: /usr/lib64/preeny/desock.so preeny: /usr/lib64/preeny/desock_dup.so preeny: /usr/lib64/preeny/desrand.so preeny: /usr/lib64/preeny/ensock.so preeny: /usr/lib64/preeny/logging.so preeny: /usr/lib64/preeny/mallocwatch.so preeny: /usr/lib64/preeny/patch.so preeny: /usr/lib64/preeny/startstop.so preeny: /usr/lib64/preeny/writeout.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/zardus/preeny/archive/0.1.tar.gz#/preeny-0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 709fda365246d23eea6aba6ef5b22093289382190dc68a0cb86e632006a0bdb5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 709fda365246d23eea6aba6ef5b22093289382190dc68a0cb86e632006a0bdb5 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1479022 -v Buildroot used: fedora-26-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
