https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1753837 --- Comment #2 from Michal Schorm <mschorm@xxxxxxxxxx> --- The package requires a libdivide package, which is being reviewed by now: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1753084 ----- Here are the steps I took to build the primecount package, test it and run fedora-review tool: 1) Create a workspace $ mkdir /tmp/primecount_package_review && cd /tmp/primecount_package_review 2) Get the required package, build it with Rawhide mock config $ wget https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libdivide/libdivide-2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm && mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --rebuild libdivide-2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm 3) Create a local repository with the required package $ mkdir libdivide_repo && cp /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/libdivide-devel-2.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm libdivide_repo && createrepo_c libdivide_repo 4) [as root] Fork mock configuration; remove the last line; add custom configuration; append the last line # cd /etc/mock && cp -p fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg fedora-rawhide-x86_64_with_libdivide.cfg # sed -i '$ d' fedora-rawhide-x86_64_with_libdivide.cfg # echo ' [local-libdivide] name=local-libdivide baseurl=file:///tmp/primecount_package_review/libdivide_repo enabled=1 skip_if_unavailable=False """ ' >> fedora-rawhide-x86_64_with_libdivide.cfg 5) Get the current package and rebuild it with the edited mock config $ wget https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/primecount/primecount-5.1-1.fc32.src.rpm && mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64_with_libdivide --rebuild primecount-5.1-1.fc32.src.rpm 6) Download the SPECfile and run fedora-review with the edited mock config $ wget https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/primecount/primecount.spec && fedora-review -n primecount -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64_with_libdivide 7) Test is mock $ cd review-primecount/results/ $ mock --init -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64_with_libdivide $ mock -i ./*4.rpm $ mock --shell bash /]# primecount 1000000 78498 ----- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [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: [ ]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "BSD (unspecified)". 145 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/primecount_package_review/review- primecount/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 153600 bytes in 7 files. [ ]: 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 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in primecount , primecount-libs , primecount-devel [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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: [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]: 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: primecount-5.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm primecount-libs-5.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm primecount-devel-5.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm primecount-debuginfo-5.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm primecount-debugsource-5.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm primecount-5.1-1.fc32.src.rpm primecount.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US combinatorial -> combination primecount.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelized -> paralleled, palatalized, pluralized primecount.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US balancer -> balance, balances, balanced primecount.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US amongst -> among st, among-st, among primecount.x86_64: W: no-documentation primecount.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary primecount primecount-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libprimecount.so.5.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 primecount-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libprimecount -> counterclaim primecount-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libprimecount -> counterclaim primecount.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US combinatorial -> combination primecount.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelized -> paralleled, palatalized, pluralized primecount.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US balancer -> balance, balances, balanced primecount.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US amongst -> among st, among-st, among 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: primecount-debuginfo-5.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm primecount-libs-debuginfo-5.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). primecount.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US combinatorial -> combination primecount.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parallelized -> paralleled, palatalized, pluralized primecount.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US balancer -> balance, balances, balanced primecount.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US amongst -> among st, among-st, among primecount.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kimwalisch/primecount/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> primecount.x86_64: W: no-documentation primecount.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary primecount primecount-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kimwalisch/primecount/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> primecount-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kimwalisch/primecount/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> primecount-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libprimecount.so.5.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 primecount-libs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kimwalisch/primecount/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> primecount-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libprimecount -> counterclaim primecount-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libprimecount -> counterclaim primecount-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kimwalisch/primecount/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> primecount-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kimwalisch/primecount/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/kimwalisch/primecount//archive/v5.1/primecount-5.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a69636ddc03788dec1b82a15e39a3bf0cd1ff38c05467471b6c61c4896c0823f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a69636ddc03788dec1b82a15e39a3bf0cd1ff38c05467471b6c61c4896c0823f Requires -------- primecount (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libprimecount.so.5()(64bit) libprimesieve.so.9()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) primecount-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) primecount-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_7.0.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.5)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libprimesieve.so.9()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) primecount-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libprimecount.so.5()(64bit) primecount-libs(x86-64) primecount-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): primecount-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- primecount: primecount primecount(x86-64) primecount-libs: libprimecount.so.5()(64bit) primecount-libs primecount-libs(x86-64) primecount-devel: primecount-devel primecount-devel(x86-64) primecount-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) primecount-debuginfo primecount-debuginfo(x86-64) primecount-debugsource: primecount-debugsource primecount-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n primecount -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64_with_libdivide Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, R, Python, fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ----- So from the first fast glimpse, ti looks fine. The package builds, runs and the fedora-review tool haven't reported any severe issues. Now I'll begin with going through the report step by step by hand to confirm the results are correct and check what the tool couldn't. -- 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
