https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731745 david08741@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |david08741@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from david08741@xxxxxxxxx --- Note that this in an informal review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1730560 bytes in 209 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation Especially as the main library is really small, it would be nice to be able to only install the library - /usr/share/doc/properties-cpp - A package must own all directories that it creates. - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [!]: Header only library must not be noarch [!]: Header only library must provide -static subpackage 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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3)". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dave/rpmbuild/properties- cpp/1731745-properties-cpp/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/properties-cpp [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/properties-cpp [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. I think no FPC exception is required anymore, but this is anyway not the case [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. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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: [-]: 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]: 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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream tests are not run. I guess this is OK, as gtest is required, and fedora only ships precompiled gtest, against upstream recomendation. [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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: properties-cpp-devel-0.0.1-1.14.10.20140730.fc31.noarch.rpm properties-cpp-0.0.1-1.14.10.20140730.fc31.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- properties-cpp-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://launchpad.net/properties-cpp <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Note: URL is valid and working Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1731745 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Python, R, Perl, C/C++, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts 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
