https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492084 --- Comment #1 from srakitnican <samuel.rakitnican@xxxxxxxxx> --- There are a couple of issues that needs to be addressed before the package is approved. - You are including COPYING file from outside the sources. Please don't do that and instead contact upstream about this issue. Fedora Packaging Guidelines are clear about this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - License tag seems to not match actual project license, movit appears to be GPLv2+ - Rpmlint warning 'shared-lib-calls-exit' seems a pretty serious one, I am not confident it is harmless. We would need a revaluation from either the author or an expert. Not sure if this blocks the package submission either. $ grep -R 'exit(' . ./demo.cpp: exit(1); ./demo.cpp: exit(1); ./demo.cpp: exit(1); ./util.cpp: exit(1); ./util.cpp: exit(1); ./util.cpp: exit(1); ./util.cpp: exit(1); ./util.cpp: exit(1); ./util.cpp: exit(1); ./effect_chain.cpp: exit(1); ./config.guess: exit(1); ./config.guess: exit(0); ./resource_pool.cpp: exit(1); ./resource_pool.cpp: exit(1); ./gtest_sdl_main.cpp: exit(1); ./gtest_sdl_main.cpp: exit(err); - There is a test included in Makefile, although it would be nice to include it in %check section, it is not mandatory. Bellow is fedora-review report. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 5 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. [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. [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 movit- data , movit-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. srakitnican: Makefile seems to support 'make check' [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]: 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: [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: movit-1.5.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm movit-devel-1.5.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm movit-data-1.5.3-1.fc28.noarch.rpm movit-debuginfo-1.5.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm movit-1.5.3-1.fc28.src.rpm movit.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmovit.so.7.0.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 movit.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id movit.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id movit-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib movit-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: movit-debuginfo-1.5.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm movit-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- movit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libepoxy.so.0()(64bit) libfftw3.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) movit-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): movit-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): movit-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libmovit.so.7()(64bit) movit(x86-64) pkgconfig(eigen3) pkgconfig(epoxy) pkgconfig(fftw3) Provides -------- movit: libmovit.so.7()(64bit) movit movit(x86-64) movit-data: movit-data movit-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) movit-debuginfo movit-debuginfo(x86-64) movit-devel: movit-devel movit-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(movit) Source checksums ---------------- https://movit.sesse.net/movit-1.5.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ead191d717dbefbe914260ed0335cf04a7dfc6fde8f23293c5ca7f88e45ace81 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ead191d717dbefbe914260ed0335cf04a7dfc6fde8f23293c5ca7f88e45ace81 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1492084 -o-r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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
