https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1439893 Ye Cheng <18969068329@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |18969068329@xxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Ye Cheng <18969068329@xxxxxxx> --- =====Issues===== -unnecessary extra sources >Source1: https://github.com/mlnlover11/LuaAssemblyTools/archive/%{commit1}.tar.gz#/LuaAssemblyTools-%{shortcommit1}.tar.gz >Source2: https://github.com/ilua/ilua/archive/%{commit2}.tar.gz#/ilua-%{shortcommit2}.tar.gz >Source4: https://github.com/viruscamp/memwatch/archive/%{commit4}.tar.gz#/memwatch-%{shortcommit4}.tar.gz They should not be downloaded as they were never used during the process(except for prep) -Some requires are missing >lua-5.1/src/Makefile:98 >linux: > $(MAKE) all MYCFLAGS=-DLUA_USE_LINUX MYLIBS="-Wl,-E -ldl -lreadline -lhistory -lncurses" BuildRequires: readline-devel, ncurses-devel are needed but missing. It seems that there is something wrong on building procedure so the runtime require libreadline.so.7, libhistory.so.7 and libncurses.so.6 wasn't pick up by rpmbuild. - Package doesn't obey FHS consistently >lua-5.1/src/luaconf.h:97 >#define LUA_ROOT "/usr/local/" >#define LUA_LDIR LUA_ROOT "share/lua/5.1/" >#define LUA_CDIR LUA_ROOT "lib/lua/5.1/" It is necessary to patch or sed this file so it can conform FHS. - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. LuaAssemblyTools contain a problematic license, but was not used during build process, nor was contained in the final package, so it should not be downloaded. - License breakdown is not shown. License of luadec is not indicated. Lua-5.1 is using MIT license. The only GPLv2 portion is memwatch, but it wasnit used during the whole build and install phase.Its file wasn't included in file section neither(so, I don't know why it was downloaded.) - Compiler Flags is not honored. >lua5.1/src/Makefile:11,99 >CFLAGS= -O2 -Wall $(MYCFLAGS) > $(MAKE) all MYCFLAGS=-DLUA_USE_LINUX MYLIBS="-Wl,-E -ldl -lreadline -lhistory >-lncurses" >luadec/Makefile:17,38 >CFLAGS= -O2 -Wall -DSRCVERSION=\"$(SRCVERSION)\" $(INCS) $(MYCFLAGS) >MYCFLAGS= $RPM_OPT_FLAGS and %{?__global_ldflags} was not honored. %make_build only expands to usr/bin/make -O %{?_smp_mflags} Perhaps it is necessary to patch the lua-5.1/src/Makefile to include these flags without overriding the -DLUA_USE_LINUX MYLIBS flag. - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. debuginfo-without-sources, I don't know why this happened, probably due to some problems in building procedure. - %check is missing Upstream shipped some sample lua programs in test directory. Probably some of them can be compiled and ran to test whether the intepreter is functional. - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Please use install -m755 -p at line 52 - Improper versioning Release tag should be 1%{dist} It seems that release tag doesn't comform either simple versioning and complex versioning scheme. Please refer https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Versioning_Examples - Documents not included Upstream shipped 2 man pages and several htmls on lua language in lua-5.1/doc directory. They should be included. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. Note: generate during compilation and linked against standalone lua intepreter, but not included in the final package. [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) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL". 610 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in ~/Downloads/lua/review- luadec/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Note: Not clear about luadec [-]: 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. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: 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. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: 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]: 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. [!]: 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]: 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in luadec- 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. [?]: 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: [!]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: luadec-0-0.1.fc26.x86_64.rpm luadec-debuginfo-0-0.1.fc26.x86_64.rpm luadec-0-0.1.fc26.src.rpm luadec.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Lua -> Lu, La, Luna luadec.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lua -> la, luau, lea luadec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Lua -> Lu, La, Luna luadec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lua -> la, luau, lea luadec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary luadec luadec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary luaopswap luadec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary luareplace luadec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources luadec.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Lua -> Lu, La, Luna luadec.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lua -> la, luau, lea luadec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Lua -> Lu, La, Luna luadec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lua -> la, luau, lea 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: luadec-debuginfo-0-0.1.fc26.x86_64.rpm luadec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory luadec-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources luadec.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Lua -> Lu, La, Luna luadec.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lua -> la, luau, lea luadec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Lua -> Lu, La, Luna luadec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lua -> la, luau, lea luadec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary luadec luadec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary luaopswap luadec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary luareplace 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/lu/Downloads/lua/luadec.spec 2017-08-09 13:28:38.569478705 +0800 +++ /home/lu/Downloads/lua/review-luadec/srpm-unpacked/luadec.spec 2017-08-09 12:09:13.000000000 +0800 @@ -22,5 +22,4 @@ BuildRequires: readline-devel -BuildRequires: ncurses-devel #Requires: Requires -------- luadec-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): luadec (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- luadec-debuginfo: luadec-debuginfo luadec-debuginfo(x86-64) luadec: luadec luadec(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ilua/ilua/archive/c9ef6799113e71d89d629b29b266d1eba4105038.tar.gz#/ilua-c9ef679.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 82a5760cf4bc698099d7b62818a9c742429d306cce2dcd25515c0ec46240cad1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 82a5760cf4bc698099d7b62818a9c742429d306cce2dcd25515c0ec46240cad1 https://github.com/viruscamp/lua5/archive/5.1/lua5-5.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ce85067ce444b07cffd3b28ef00b42c2f11ee1a9772fcdb6028112bb3ac44292 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ce85067ce444b07cffd3b28ef00b42c2f11ee1a9772fcdb6028112bb3ac44292 https://github.com/viruscamp/luadec/archive/895d92313fabaee260121c758c8320d1b21dd741.tar.gz#/luadec-895d923.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 49b2467a9742ea150e900c5c1f9b2aae8060add8c6f1349930a3b52e551762f0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 49b2467a9742ea150e900c5c1f9b2aae8060add8c6f1349930a3b52e551762f0 https://github.com/mlnlover11/LuaAssemblyTools/archive/e496bc6df2e49ea0beebb26f216aca3821a2b28e.tar.gz#/LuaAssemblyTools-e496bc6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0ea663a3786df707408ca9befc7291b7669793b1618cac7efa1ea486d2a951db CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0ea663a3786df707408ca9befc7291b7669793b1618cac7efa1ea486d2a951db https://github.com/viruscamp/memwatch/archive/79c86d1b258b13dc0d1a2a66f28aadc0f6e23944.tar.gz#/memwatch-79c86d1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 32ac1ad7d7def21ae6b5ebc3a90f3a229d039542662e56e716df3ac2904df0a2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 32ac1ad7d7def21ae6b5ebc3a90f3a229d039542662e56e716df3ac2904df0a2 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n lua -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
