https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638994 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hmmm you're gonna encounter problems with your package naming once Python is upgraded (it is planned soon). I suggest you keep the main package name to boost-python3 as a dummy empty package then add a subpackage named boost-python%{python3_pkgversion}. Also rename the devel subpackage to be boost-python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel - Add gcc-c++ as BR - python-devel → python2-devel - Use %global instead of %define Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: boost-python34.spec should be boost-python3.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Cannot run licensecheck: Command 'licensecheck -r /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream-unpacked' returned non-zero exit status -15 [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: Especially check following dirs for bundled code: /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream- unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/tools/build/v2/test/railsys/program/include, /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream- unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/tools/build/v2/test/railsys/libx/include, /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream-unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/tools/auto_index/include, /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream- unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/tools/build/v2/example/libraries, /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream- unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/tools/build/v2/engine/boehm_gc/include, /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream-unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/boost/spirit/include, /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream- unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/tools/boostbook/test/more/tests/libs, /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream-unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/tools/quickbook/test/include, /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream- unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/tools/build/v2/test/prebuilt/ext, /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream-unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/boost/numeric/odeint/external, /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream- unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/boost/spirit/repository/include, /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream- unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/tools/build/v2/example/variant/libs, /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream- unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/tools/build/v2/example/pch/include, /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream-unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/boost/numeric/interval/ext, /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream-unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/libs, /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34/review-boost-python34 /upstream-unpacked/Source0/boost_1_53_0/boost/fusion/include [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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]: 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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [-]: 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. [-]: %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 version_enc 1_53_0, %define toplev_dirname boost_%{version_enc}, %define sonamever %{version} [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/bob/packaging/review/boost-python34 /review-boost-python34/srpm-unpacked/boost-python34.spec See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: boost-python3-1.53.0-27.el7.src.rpm boost-python3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versa -> avers, verse, verso boost-python3.src: E: invalid-spec-name boost-python3.src:294: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 294, tab: line 278) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 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
