https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673956 Hirotaka Wakabayashi <hiwkby@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hiwkby@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi <hiwkby@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello, this is not a complete review. I will do additional review tomorrow. Please read this for your reference. Summary ======= 1. rpmlint results 2. Koji scratch build succeeded 3. License Details ======= 1. rpmlint results ------------------ One error and one warning on the source rpm and 11 warnings on the binary rpms. Here are the rpmlint results:: $ rpmlint /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/SRPMS/octave-openems-0.0.35-1.fc29.src.rpm octave-openems.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{version} octave-openems.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 15: %{version}.tar.xz --exclude-vcs openEMS-Project 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/octave-ctb-0.0.35-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm octave-ctb.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/octave-hyp2mat-0.0.35-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm octave-hyp2mat.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/hyp2mat.1.gz 230: warning: macro `ni' not defined octave-hyp2mat.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/octave-hyp2mat-debuginfo-0.0.35-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/octave-openems-0.0.35-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm octave-openems.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libQCSXCAD.so.0.6.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 octave-openems.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libnf2ff.so.0.1.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 octave-openems.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libopenEMS.so.0.0.35 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 octave-openems.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary AppCSXCAD octave-openems.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nf2ff octave-openems.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openEMS octave-openems.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/octave-openems-debuginfo-0.0.35-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/octave-openems-debugsource-0.0.35-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/vagrant/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/octave-openems-devel-0.0.35-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm octave-openems-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. My review on the result above is as followings. 1.1. octave-openems.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{version} You can escape a macro in comment in the specfile by adding another leading % to suppress this warning. Macros in comments can be a problem because they are expanded everywhere.:: $ diff octave-openems.spec.orig octave-openems.spec 15c15 < # tar cJvf openems-%{version}.tar.xz --exclude-vcs openEMS-Project --- > # tar cJvf openems-%%{version}.tar.xz --exclude-vcs openEMS-Project 1.2. octave-openems.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 15: %{version}.tar.xz --exclude-vcs openEMS-Project I think the reason is same with the 1.1's one. 1.3. octave-ctb.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv I think this warning is probably because modifying the file system by root. Executing "rpmspec -P octave-openems.spec" will show what it is doing. 1.4. octave-hyp2mat.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/hyp2mat.1.gz 230: warning: macro `ni' not defined The "ni" macro is undefined. 1.5. octave-hyp2mat.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv I think this warning is probably because modifying the file system by root. Executing "rpmspec -P octave-openems.spec" will show what it is doing. 1.6. octave-openems.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libQCSXCAD.so.0.6.2 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 Functions in this library should return success or error so that calling program can handle the result. The library might not return nothing and call the "exit" function that causes normal process termination. 1.7. octave-openems.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libnf2ff.so.0.1.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 The reason is same with the 1.6's one. 1.8. octave-openems.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libopenEMS.so.0.0.35 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 The reason is same with the 1.6's one. 1.9. octave-openems.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary AppCSXCAD The package should contain the man page for "AppCSXCAD" [1]. You might know that help2man [2] is a useful tool. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages [2] https://www.gnu.org/software/help2man/ 1.10. octave-openems.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nf2ff The reason is same with the 1.9's one. 1.11. octave-openems.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openEMS The reason is same with the 1.9's one. 1.12. octave-openems.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv I think this warning is probably because modifying the file system by root. Executing "rpmspec -P octave-openems.spec" will show what it is doing. 1.13. octave-openems-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package should include documentation like README if you have. 2. Koji scratch build succeeded -------------------------------- Here is the result of "koji build --scratch rawhide octave-openems-0.0.35-1.fc29.src.rpm" https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33656976 Here is the reference to run a koji scratch build. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system#Scratch_Builds 3. License ----------- The packaging guidelines say maintainers must make every possible effort to be accurate when filling the License: field [1]. If QCSXCAD is licensed under LGPL-3.0, License: field should contain "LGPLv3". See the Fedora Software License List [2]. The packaging guidelines say multiple Licensing scenario is highly encouraged to be avoided whenever reasonably possible [3]. If multiple Licensing scenario happens, the package must contain a comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown [3]. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses [3] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi -- 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
