https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636111 Kefu Chai <kchai@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kchai@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #11 from Kefu Chai <kchai@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - please remove "Group: " tag, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections - the "License:" field is not correct anymore. see "COPYING", the license has been changed to LGPLv3. - instead of "BuildRequires: glib2-devel >= 2.10", might want to * "BuildRequires: pkgconfig(glib-2.0) > 2.10" and * "BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gthread-2.0)" see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PkgConfigBuildRequires - nit, might want to patch the `CMakeLists.txt`, as its version number is still 1.0.9. please 'grep GLYR_VERSION_MICRO' in the source tree for more details. - in %description section, it'd be better to add hypyen between "easy to use" so it looks like "easy-to-use". because it helps user to digest it. see also: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/hyphen - could you justify why debug_package is disabled? - could you link 0001-use-lastfm-getinfo-instead-getimages.patch to upstream bugs/comments/lists, or justify it in the header of the patch? - libglyr comes with a test suite, shall we have %check for exercising it and for making sure all tests pass? at least, capi could be tested, i guess. - "Requires: libcurl" does not look right. please leave it to rpm, it is able to figure out the runtime dependency introduced by linked shared libraries. - 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 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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: [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: glyr-1.0.10-6.20180824git618c418e.fc28.x86_64.rpm glyr-libs-1.0.10-6.20180824git618c418e.fc28.x86_64.rpm glyr-devel-1.0.10-6.20180824git618c418e.fc28.x86_64.rpm glyr-1.0.10-6.20180824git618c418e.fc28.src.rpm glyr.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libcurl glyr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glyrc glyr-libs.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C glyr library glyr-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation glyr-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libglyr -> glibber glyr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation glyr.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Sun Oct 22 2018 Matias De lellis <mati86dl@xxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.10-5.20180824git618c418e 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory glyr.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libcurl glyr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glyrc glyr-libs.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C glyr library glyr-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libglyr.so.1.1.0 /lib64/libgthread-2.0.so.0 glyr-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation glyr-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libglyr -> glibber glyr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 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
