https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054 --- Comment #27 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/scidavis See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names This is review is considered as an "unorphaning" process. - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in scidavis See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- database No longer used on Fedora. ===== 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. [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: "GPL", "GPL (v3)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)", "GPL (v3 or later)". 343 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1490054-scidavis/licensecheck.txt GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ are compatible licenses; you can use GPLv3+ as resultant license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/locolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/locolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/locolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/mime, /usr/share/mime/packages, /usr/share/icons/locolor, /usr/share/icons/locolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/locolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/locolor/22x22/apps '/usr/share/icons/locolor' looks not owned by any package. I think you can permit 'scidavis' owns it, use: %dir %{_datadir}/icons/locolor [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. [-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in scidavis [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 30720 bytes in 4 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: update-mime-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package stores mime configuration in /usr/share/mime/packages. Note: mimeinfo files in: scidavis See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo No longer used on Fedora. [-]: 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 python2-scidavis , scidavis-debuginfo [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. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2191360 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: scidavis-1.21-4.fc28.x86_64.rpm python2-scidavis-1.21-4.fc28.x86_64.rpm scidavis-debuginfo-1.21-4.fc28.x86_64.rpm scidavis-1.21-4.fc28.src.rpm scidavis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scriptability -> script ability, script-ability, inscrutability scidavis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extensibility -> sensibility, extensible python2-scidavis.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib python2-scidavis.x86_64: W: no-documentation scidavis-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) scidavis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scriptability -> script ability, script-ability, inscrutability scidavis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extensibility -> sensibility, extensible scidavis.src:72: W: macro-in-comment %patch1 scidavis.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch0: scidavis-armv7hl-build.patch 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: scidavis-debuginfo-1.21-4.fc28.x86_64.rpm scidavis-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- scidavis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scriptability -> script ability, script-ability, inscrutability scidavis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extensibility -> sensibility, extensible python2-scidavis.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib python2-scidavis.x86_64: W: no-documentation scidavis-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- scidavis (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh PyQt4 hicolor-icon-theme libGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLU.so.1()(64bit) libQt3Support.so.4()(64bit) libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libQtOpenGL.so.4()(64bit) libQtSql.so.4()(64bit) libQtSvg.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgsl.so.23()(64bit) libgslcblas.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmuparser.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) libqwt.so.5()(64bit) libqwtplot3d-qt4.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) python2-scidavis (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-scipy scidavis(x86-64) scidavis-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- scidavis: application() application(scidavis.desktop) libexp_saturation.so.1()(64bit) libexplin.so.1()(64bit) libfitRational0.so.1()(64bit) libfitRational1.so.1()(64bit) libplanck_wavelength.so.1()(64bit) metainfo() metainfo(scidavis.appdata.xml) mimehandler(application/x-sciprj) scidavis scidavis(x86-64) python2-scidavis: python-scidavis python-scidavis(x86-64) python2-scidavis python2-scidavis(x86-64) scidavis-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) scidavis-debuginfo scidavis-debuginfo(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- scidavis: /usr/lib64/scidavis/plugins/libexp_saturation.so scidavis: /usr/lib64/scidavis/plugins/libexplin.so scidavis: /usr/lib64/scidavis/plugins/libfitRational0.so scidavis: /usr/lib64/scidavis/plugins/libfitRational1.so scidavis: /usr/lib64/scidavis/plugins/libplanck_wavelength.so Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/scidavis/scidavis-1.21.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0e103d4669578205226568eb39b4d138bb99d1c32c3724b40d59810aa64ea05b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0e103d4669578205226568eb39b4d138bb99d1c32c3724b40d59810aa64ea05b Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1490054 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, 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
