https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677973 --- Comment #2 from Alain V. <alain.vigne.14@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - --prefix=/usr → --prefix=%{_prefix} > done > - The build doesn't respect Fedora build flags, use: > > %build > sed -i "s|USER_CFLAGS = -DGENCALL -DRUNTIME -g|USER_CFLAGS = %{optflags}|" > scconfig/Makefile > sed -i "s|USER_LDFLAGS =|USER_LDFLAGS = %{__global_ldflags}|" > scconfig/Makefile > I agree, the Fedora build flags should be incorporated, but not the way you propose... I checked with upstream and learned there is a mechanism for CFLAGS and LDFLAGS, and use it now ./"configure" --CFLAGS="%{build_cflags}" --LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}" \ --prefix=%{_prefix} --symbols > - Use: > > %files doc > %{_docdir}/%{name} > > And remove %{_docdir}/%{name} from the main package > done > - Do not include the INSTALL file with %doc done > > - Be more specific here: > > %{_mandir}/man1/xschem.1* done > > > > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Permissions on files are set properly. > Note: See rpmlint output > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions > - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > Note: BUILDSTDERR: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/xschem > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles > - 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. > Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license This is not a GPL license text, but some author text. Should I include this file using %license directive ? > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 4014080 bytes in 264 files. > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a > BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. > [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: "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 > or later) GNU Lesser General Public License (v2)", "*No copyright* > Creative Commons CC0 Public License (v8)", "GPL (v2 or later)", > "Unknown or generated". 499 files have unknown license. Detailed > output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/xschem/review- > xschem/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/share/man/man1(filesystem) > [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. This is a GUI application, but desktop integration is not proposed yet. Should work it with upstream, for a future release... > [-]: 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [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 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: > [-]: 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 xschem- > doc , xschem-debuginfo , xschem-debugsource > [?]: Package functions as described. > [x]: 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. > [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]: 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: > [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4392960 bytes in /usr/share > [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: xschem-2.8.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm > xschem-doc-2.8.2-1.fc30.noarch.rpm > xschem-debuginfo-2.8.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm > xschem-debugsource-2.8.2-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm > xschem-2.8.2-1.fc30.src.rpm > xschem.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netlist -> net list, > net-list, Listerine > xschem.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1 > xschem.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/xschem/INSTALL > xschem-doc.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/xschem/INSTALL > xschem.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netlist -> net list, > net-list, Listerine > xschem.src:58: W: configure-without-libdir-spec > 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 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
