https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1516411 --- Comment #3 from Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ---ISSUES--- - no major issues, I commented it in text ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /root/libijs /review-libijs/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/ijs(ghostscript- devel) This is expected. Ghostscript-devel owns the directory now, but it won't after adding libijs package. [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). [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Versioning of package is in form libijs-0.35-1.gitHASH, which is not according FPG. Packager is aware of it - some new packages is using this way and he thinks the versioning part of FPG is deprecated. Packager is willing to change it if that causes problems for someone. [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 [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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 libijs- doc , libijs-debuginfo False positive. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Upstream will create mirror with own license file, this review was done with license files added as Source, but packager agreed with upstream on license and license file. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [?]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments Upstream will create mirror in near future, that's why it is only tarball right now. [x]: 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]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools This requirement is optional and package works with it. Packager was informed about the issue. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: libijs-0.35-1.gitd26d2bb.fc26.x86_64.rpm libijs-devel-0.35-1.gitd26d2bb.fc26.x86_64.rpm libijs-doc-0.35-1.gitd26d2bb.fc26.noarch.rpm libijs-debuginfo-0.35-1.gitd26d2bb.fc26.x86_64.rpm libijs-0.35-1.gitd26d2bb.fc26.src.rpm libijs.x86_64: W: no-documentation libijs.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libijs-0.35.so libijs.x86_64: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig False positive. libijs-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackage -> sub package, sub-package, package's Word 'subpackage' is correct. libijs-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pc -> PC, p, c This is file extension, it it correct. libijs-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libijs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation Documentation is packaged separately. libijs-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackage -> sub package, sub-package, package's Same as above. libijs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libijs-0.35-d26d2bb.tar.xz Upstream will create mirror in near future, that's why it is only tarball right now. 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libijs-debuginfo-0.35-1.gitd26d2bb.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory libijs-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackage -> sub package, sub-package, package's Same as above. libijs-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pc -> PC, p, c libijs-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://ghostscript.com/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> This is expected, fedora-review tool was run in 1minutetip. URL works. libijs-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libijs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libijs-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackage -> sub package, sub-package, package's Same as above. libijs-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://ghostscript.com/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> Same as above. libijs.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://ghostscript.com/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> Same as above. libijs.x86_64: W: no-documentation libijs.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib64/libijs-0.35.so libijs.x86_64: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig libijs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://ghostscript.com/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> Same as above. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings. Requires -------- libijs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libijs(x86-64) libijs-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libijs libijs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libijs-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libijs-devel: libijs-devel libijs-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(ijs) libijs-doc: libijs-doc libijs: libijs libijs(x86-64) libijs-0.35.so()(64bit) libijs-debuginfo: libijs-debuginfo libijs-debuginfo(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- libijs: /usr/lib64/libijs-0.35.so AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libijs-0.35/configure.ac:114, libijs-0.35/configure.ac:120 AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: libijs-0.35/configure.ac:109 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n libijs 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
