https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1585758 Jani Juhani Sinervo <jani@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jani@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Jani Juhani Sinervo <jani@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Here's a preliminary (unofficial) review. Some points I thought would be useful: - Even though this is a development package by itself, and thus as far as I can tell an unversioned .so-file is acceptable, I would still try to make the _cqueues.so into a versioned .so-file, and then maybe creating an symbolic link from that versioned file to _cqueues.so. - Like I've marked below, this version of the library isn't the latest. Is there a reason for this? If there is nothing blocking you updating the library version packaged, I would suggest making the version packaged the latest stable release. - In your %files-section of the doc-subpackage you don't own the package directories correctly. I'd suggest adding %{_pkgdocdir} with %dir-specifier. Or even better, I'd add the docs using the %doc-specifier. - As you said, the rpmlint messages may be waived, since most of the "misspellings" are either the project's name or things understandable in context. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: 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)", "*No copyright* MIT (old)", "Unknown or generated". 92 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jani/review_stuff/1585758-lua- cqueues/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/lua-cqueues/examples, /usr/share/doc/lua-cqueues [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/lua/5.1, /usr/share/lua/5.3, /usr/lib64/lua, /usr/share/doc/lua- cqueues/examples, /usr/share/lua, /usr/lib64/lua/5.3, /usr/lib64/lua/5.1, /usr/share/doc/lua-cqueues [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. -- Not sure if artefact from this SPEC also seeming to work for RHEL as well [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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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 lua- cqueues-compat , lua-cqueues-doc , lua-cqueues-debuginfo , lua- cqueues-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described.you just using common development vocabulary, and [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define luacompatver 5.1, %define luacompatlibdir %{_libdir}/lua/%{luacompatver}, %define luacompatpkgdir %{_datadir}/lua/%{luacompatver} [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. (Of course I need to mention that I may have done some mistakes reviewing this.) [x]: Buildroot is not present [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: lua-cqueues-20161215-0.fc28.x86_64.rpm lua-cqueues-compat-20161215-0.fc28.x86_64.rpm lua-cqueues-doc-20161215-0.fc28.noarch.rpm lua-cqueues-debuginfo-20161215-0.fc28.x86_64.rpm lua-cqueues-debugsource-20161215-0.fc28.x86_64.rpm lua-cqueues-20161215-0.fc28.src.rpm lua-cqueues.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Stackable -> Stack able, Stack-able, Stable lua-cqueues.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coroutines -> co routines, co-routines, routines lua-cqueues.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stackable -> stack able, stack-able, stable lua-cqueues.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cqueue -> queue, c queue, McQueen lua-cqueues.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able lua-cqueues.x86_64: W: no-documentation lua-cqueues-compat.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Stackable -> Stack able, Stack-able, Stable lua-cqueues-compat.x86_64: W: no-documentation lua-cqueues.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Stackable -> Stack able, Stack-able, Stable lua-cqueues.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coroutines -> co routines, co-routines, routines lua-cqueues.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stackable -> stack able, stack-able, stable lua-cqueues.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cqueue -> queue, c queue, McQueen lua-cqueues.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/FNKI6UTHVGD3U72KLC5XWLIJGDMN7I7E/
