https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1482202 Jan Synacek <jsynacek@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tgunders@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(tgunders@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #3 from Jan Synacek <jsynacek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I have marked my comments with "jsynacek:" to make them more visible. Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/jsynacek/review/1482202-dbus-broker/diff.txt jsynacek: The upstream specfile differs from the one in the srpm. This should not be a problem. - 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 jsynacek: This should be fixed. Please, remove the BuildRequires: gcc from the spec. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: 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", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 102 files have unknown license. Detailed output of jsynacek: All files are licensed according to COPYING, which is Apache v2.0. No action needed. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. jsynacek: I believe that this failed check doesn't apply since meson is used to build the package. Make is only used to build the selinux policy. [ ]: 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 dbus- broker-debuginfo jsynacek: The debuginfo package is generated by rpm, so I consider this false positive. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define c_dvar_version 1, %define c_list_version 3, %define c_rbtree_version 3, %define c_sundry_commit 3b5f04b5af54dea68d832546833d6d460d03aefc jsynacek: See additional questions. rpmlint ------- dbus-broker.x86_64: W: no-documentation dbus-broker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dbus-broker dbus-broker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dbus-broker-launch jsynacek: These two should definitely have a manpage, in my opinion. dbus-broker-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources dbus-broker.src: W: file-size-mismatch dbus-broker-2.tar.gz = 136357, https://github.com/bus1/dbus-broker/archive/v2/dbus-broker-2.tar.gz = 138241 jsynacek: Well this one is really weird. Please check the uploaded srpm and the sources. jsynacek: Additional questions. Why depend on glib? I mean you implemented a lot of low level stuff from scratch (variant, lists, ...). Why c_sundry_commit instead of c_sundry_version? I'd say it should have a version as well, as this looks like it's just not ready for release. Why does the build require systemd and systemd-devel? Just curious (this one is really off topic for this review, but still...). Why implement your libraries as header files only? -- 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
