https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924 --- Comment #18 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Looks good. A few tweaks are all that are needed now. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. ^ I'm unable to check this. - 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in pveclib See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets ^ No need for them now so they can be removed. - 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 COPYING is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ^ Is COPYING the same as LICENSE? It should be in %license nevertheless. - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- review/pveclib/review-pveclib/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ^ Please check this. - %configure is called twice---is that intentional? ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed ^ fedora-review picked this up. Not entirely sure if this is needed. [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. [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. Note: Using prebuilt packages ^ Ran a scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36361206 [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. [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. [x]: 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 61440 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: pveclib-static. [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. ^ Verified in a scratch build [-]: 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. [?]: Package functions as described. ^ You'll have to check this [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. ^ Couldn't run it on installed packages. [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pveclib-1.0.2-1.fc31.ppc64le.rpm pveclib-devel-1.0.2-1.fc31.ppc64le.rpm pveclib-static-1.0.2-1.fc31.ppc64le.rpm pveclib-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc31.ppc64le.rpm pveclib-debugsource-1.0.2-1.fc31.ppc64le.rpm pveclib-1.0.2-1.fc31.src.rpm pveclib.ppc64le: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US altivec -> elective pveclib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US altivec -> elective 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/open-power-sdk/pveclib/archive/v1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9fe2ec2a0a16fce087e46f5eb70187f6f86f84ba522f1a371c046d0ef6ba80a5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a7d063bd6615bf75ac1b6c1bb3e6aa49044d602e84907140b41519792077199c diff -r also reports differences ^ Please check this Requires -------- pveclib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) pveclib-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libpvec.so.0()(64bit) pveclib(ppc-64) pveclib-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pveclib(ppc-64) pveclib-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pveclib-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pveclib: libpvec.so.0()(64bit) pveclib pveclib(ppc-64) pveclib-devel: pveclib-devel pveclib-devel(ppc-64) pveclib-static: pveclib-static pveclib-static(ppc-64) pveclib-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pveclib-debuginfo pveclib-debuginfo(ppc-64) pveclib-debugsource: pveclib-debugsource pveclib-debugsource(ppc-64) AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/pveclib/review- pveclib/upstream-unpacked/Source0/pveclib-1.0.2/configure.ac:15 ^ Also worth checking and reporting upstream. Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n pveclib -p Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, Java, Haskell, R, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
