https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577011 --- Comment #3 from Peter Oliver <mavit@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for submitting this. Here’s my review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. Use %{?dist} instead of %{dist}. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages Files /usr/lib/libwiringPi.so and /usr/lib/libwiringPiDev.so are present in both the libs and devel subpackages, but should only be in the devel subpackage. - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in wiringpi-libs See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries On Fedora 27 and earlier, a post-install scriptlet is required in the libs subpackage. - Package uses hardened build flags if required to. Note: suid files: gpio and not %global _hardened_build See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags - The licence can be left out of the main and devel subpackages, since both depend on libs, which also contains the licence. - The devel subpackage should mention %{?_isa} when it requires the libs subpackage. Perhaps the main package should require the libs subpackage in the same way. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package - Can this be built on all ARM flavours? ExclusiveArch could be set to %{arm} if so. - rpmlint suggests that “WiringPi is” is left off the start of the Summary. - Commit 8d188fa of WiringPi is tagged as version 2.46, which means the “release version” guidelines rather than the “snapshot” guidelines of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning should be followed (i.e., “.git%{commit_short}” can removed). - It might be nice to install the examples as documentation in the devel package. - Could some of the Makefile changes be submitted upstream? ===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [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 20480 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in wiringpi-libs , wiringpi-devel , wiringpi-debuginfo , wiringpi- debugsource [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. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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 all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [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 ------- wiringpi.armv7hl: W: name-repeated-in-summary C WiringPi wiringpi.armv7hl: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib wiringpi.armv7hl: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/gpio root 4755 wiringpi.armv7hl: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/gpio 4755 wiringpi.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C WiringPi wiringpi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gpio -> GPO wiringpi-debugsource.armv7hl: W: no-documentation wiringpi-devel.armv7hl: W: no-documentation wiringpi-libs.armv7hl: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libwiringPi.so.2.46 libwiringPi.so wiringpi-libs.armv7hl: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib/libwiringPiDev.so.2.46 libwiringPiDev.so wiringpi-libs.armv7hl: W: no-documentation wiringpi-libs.armv7hl: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libwiringPi.so wiringpi-libs.armv7hl: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libwiringPi.so.2.46 wiringpi-libs.armv7hl: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libwiringPi.so.2.46 wiringpi-libs.armv7hl: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libwiringPiDev.so wiringpi-libs.armv7hl: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libwiringPiDev.so.2.46 wiringpi-libs.armv7hl: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libwiringPiDev.so.2.46 wiringpi-libs-debuginfo.armv7hl: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) 7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 9 warnings. Requires -------- wiringpi-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wiringpi-libs wiringpi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-armhf.so.3 libc.so.6 libcrypt.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.5) libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libwiringPi.so libwiringPiDev.so rtld(GNU_HASH) wiringpi-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-armhf.so.3 libc.so.6 libcrypt.so.1 libcrypt.so.1(XCRYPT_2.0) libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.5) libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) wiringpi-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wiringpi-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- wiringpi-devel: wiringpi-devel wiringpi-devel(armv7hl-32) wiringpi: wiringpi wiringpi(armv7hl-32) wiringpi-libs: libwiringPi.so libwiringPiDev.so wiringpi-libs wiringpi-libs(armv7hl-32) wiringpi-debugsource: wiringpi-debugsource wiringpi-debugsource(armv7hl-32) wiringpi-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) wiringpi-debuginfo wiringpi-debuginfo(armv7hl-32) Unversioned so-files -------------------- wiringpi-libs: /usr/lib/libwiringPi.so wiringpi-libs: /usr/lib/libwiringPiDev.so Source checksums ---------------- https://git.drogon.net/?p=wiringPi;a=snapshot;h=8d188fa0e00bb8c6ff6eddd07bf92857e9bd533a;sf=tgz#/wiringPi-8d188fa.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 636fd5f76424bff05efa05eca5e98ac34581b0d1dbb1fbd83a145fbb37e097af CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 636fd5f76424bff05efa05eca5e98ac34581b0d1dbb1fbd83a145fbb37e097af Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n wiringpi --prebuilt Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
