https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750009 Björn "besser82" Esser <besser82@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Björn "besser82" Esser <besser82@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- >From a quick view over the spec-file: * You can drop Group, BuildRoot, `rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT`, %clean and %defattr. * You may want to strip %changelog from ancient entries. * `%{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}` isn't needed anymore, simply use plain `%license`, which works on any dist now. * `make %{?_smp_mflags}` should be `%make_build` now. * `make install DESDIR=…` should be `%make_install` now. * Explicit Requires: pkgconfig in -devel isn't needed anymore. *** Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ---> That's due the need for a bootstrap-chroot for mock, when building for el6. - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ---> As stated in my comments about the spec file. - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1884160 bytes in 43 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ---> Well, one could argue about that… Documentation is less than 2MiB. I don't see any issue with that. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 114 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/fedora/review/750009-libburn1/licensecheck.txt ---> MIT/X11 is comming from an autotools script, GPLv2+ from libtool helper script. According to the COPYRIGHT file GPLv2+ is fine. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed ---> Please drop it. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 ---> Some minor issues are present, but those can be fixed during import. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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. [x]: 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: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed ---> Please drop it. [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required ---> Please drop it. [-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libburn1-debuginfo ---> debuginfo is autogenerated, so no issue here. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint ---> That's due the need for a bootstrap-chroot for mock, when building for el6. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1925120 bytes in /usr/share ---> I'm fine with that. Since most of it is in the devel-package. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.4.3 starting (python version = 3.6.2)... Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled yum cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning yum metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.3 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.3 Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled yum cache Start: cleaning yum metadata Finish: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.3 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.3 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/besser82/fedora/review/750009-libburn1/results/libburn1-debuginfo-1.4.6-1.el6.x86_64.rpm /home/besser82/fedora/review/750009-libburn1/results/libburn1-1.4.6-1.el6.x86_64.rpm /home/besser82/fedora/review/750009-libburn1/results/libburn1-devel-1.4.6-1.el6.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/epel-6-x86_64/root/ --releasever 6 install /home/besser82/fedora/review/750009-libburn1/results/libburn1-debuginfo-1.4.6-1.el6.x86_64.rpm /home/besser82/fedora/review/750009-libburn1/results/libburn1-1.4.6-1.el6.x86_64.rpm /home/besser82/fedora/review/750009-libburn1/results/libburn1-devel-1.4.6-1.el6.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: libburn1-1.4.6-1.el6.x86_64.rpm libburn1-devel-1.4.6-1.el6.x86_64.rpm libburn1-debuginfo-1.4.6-1.el6.x86_64.rpm libburn1-1.4.6-1.el6.src.rpm libburn1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Libburn -> Lib burn, Lib-burn, Cliburn libburn1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preformatted -> reformatted, p reformatted, formatted libburn1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libburn -> lib burn, lib-burn, Cliburn libburn1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cdrecord -> rerecord, recorded, recorder libburn1.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://libburnia-project.org/ The read operation timed out libburn1.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libburn1.so.4.99.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 libburn1.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libburn1-1.4.6/COPYING libburn1.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libburn1-1.4.6/COPYRIGHT libburn1-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libburn1-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/libburn-1.4.6/libburn/cdtext.c libburn1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Libburn -> Lib burn, Lib-burn, Cliburn libburn1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preformatted -> reformatted, p reformatted, formatted libburn1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libburn -> lib burn, lib-burn, Cliburn libburn1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cdrecord -> rerecord, recorded, recorder libburn1.src: W: strange-permission libburn-1.4.6.tar.gz 444 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings. ---> LGTM Requires -------- libburn1-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libburn1-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libburn1(x86-64) libburn1.so.4()(64bit) pkgconfig libburn1 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libburn1.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libburn1-debuginfo: libburn1-debuginfo libburn1-debuginfo(x86-64) libburn1-devel: libburn1-devel libburn1-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libburn1-1) libburn1: libburn1 libburn1(x86-64) libburn1.so.4()(64bit) libburn1.so.4(LIBBURN4)(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- http://files.libburnia-project.org/releases/libburn-1.4.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9d36faab25478c01122a65873133b7fc60eb5ffbe12710d5757a7c3574227071 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9d36faab25478c01122a65873133b7fc60eb5ffbe12710d5757a7c3574227071 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m epel-6-x86_64 -o--bootstrap-chroot --no-cleanup-after --no-clean -b 750009 Buildroot used: epel-6-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 ===== Solution ===== Package APPROVED!!! -- You are receiving this mail because: 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
