[Bug 1677989] Review Request: vcglib Visualization and Computer Graphics Library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677989



--- Comment #19 from Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
Almost there. License tag is wrong, most headers have GPLv2 or later, while
some files have no license tags. Since there is conflict between main license
file and file headers, both must be declared in License tag.

License: GPLv2+ and GPLv3+

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: sed
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)
     GNU Lesser General Public License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License", "GPL (v3 or later) GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or
     later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Boehm
     GC License Mozilla Public License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Mozilla
     Public License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License",
     "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with
     incorrect FSF address)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1)",
     "Mozilla Public License (v2.0)", "GNU Lesser General Public License
     (modified-code-notice clause) GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1
     or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)". 455 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide
     /review-vcglib/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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.
[-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[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]: 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 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in vcglib-
     devel
[x]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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: 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: vcglib-1.0.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          vcglib-devel-1.0.1-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm
          vcglib-1.0.1-1.fc30.src.rpm
vcglib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templated -> templates,
template, template d
vcglib.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.1 ['1.0.1-1.fc30',
'1.0.1-1']
vcglib.x86_64: E: no-binary
vcglib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
vcglib-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/vcglib/wrap/system/getopt.cpp
vcglib-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/vcglib/wrap/system/getopt.h
vcglib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templated -> templates,
template, template d
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings.

Requires
--------
vcglib-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    pkgconfig(eigen3)
    vcglib(x86-64)

vcglib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    eigen3



Provides
--------
vcglib-devel:
    pkgconfig(vcglib)
    vcglib-devel
    vcglib-devel(x86-64)
    vcglib-static

vcglib:
    vcglib
    vcglib(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/cnr-isti-vclab/vcglib/archive/v1.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
406e570637d3820810bf85fea7d8138ab8c70dfcb1be9941a0994ab3a793d1d0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
406e570637d3820810bf85fea7d8138ab8c70dfcb1be9941a0994ab3a793d1d0


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02

-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux