https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Problem installing the package: DEBUG util.py:593: Error: DEBUG util.py:593: Problem: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:593: - nothing provides CGAL needed by octave-iso2mesh-1.9.1-1.fc32.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:595: (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) CGAL.spec 5.0 has now this comment: # CGAL-5.0 is now a header-only library, with dependencies. It no # longer has any binary to build, but cannot be noarch because of # arch-specific dependencies It doesn't provide a CGAL binary anymore. - Own these directories: %{octpkgdir}/doc/ %{octpkgdir}/bin/ [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/octave/packages/iso2mesh-1.9.1/bin, /usr/share/octave/packages/iso2mesh-1.9.1/doc - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1382400 bytes in 31 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation Make a separate doc noarch subpackage containing the sample/ dir - [!]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Note: See rpmlint output Remove Rpath from bin/meshfix octave-iso2mesh.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/share/octave/packages/iso2mesh-1.9.1/bin/meshfix ['/builddir/build/BUILD/iso2mesh-1.9.1/tools/meshfix/contrib/JMeshLib/lib'] I think the best path to do this is to patch out: link_directories( ${LINK_DIRECTORIES} ${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/contrib/JMeshLib/lib ) from meshfix CMakeLists.txt #meshfix-remove-rpath.patch diff -up a/CMakeLists.txt.orig b/CMakeLists.txt --- a/CMakeLists.txt.orig 2019-10-01 18:39:42.000000000 +0200 +++ b/CMakeLists.txt 2019-10-07 20:06:44.072901788 +0200 @@ -8,10 +8,6 @@ include_directories( contrib/OpenNL3.2.1/src contrib/jrs_predicates ) -link_directories( - ${LINK_DIRECTORIES} - ${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/contrib/JMeshLib/lib -) file(GLOB meshfix_h include/*.h) set(meshfix_src contrib/jrs_predicates/jrs_predicates.c Patch0: meshfix-remove-rpath.patch […] %prep %setup -q -b 1 -n %{octpkg}-%{version} %setup -q -T -D -b 2 -n meshfix-1.2.1 %patch0 -p1 %setup -q -T -D -b 3 -n %{octpkg}-%{version} (See http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-macros.html for %setup flags, -T -D is necessary to avoid multiple unzipping of Source0) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1382400 bytes in 31 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Note: See rpmlint output [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) 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 (v3 or later)", "*No copyright* Q Public License (v1.0) GNU General Public License GNU Lesser General Public License", "BSD (unspecified)", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "AGPL (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Expat License". 306 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/octave- iso2mesh/review-octave-iso2mesh/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/octave/packages/iso2mesh-1.9.1/bin, /usr/share/octave/packages/iso2mesh-1.9.1/doc [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 all installed packages. [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 10352640 bytes in /usr/share octave-iso2mesh-1.9.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm:10352640 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: octave-iso2mesh-1.9.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm octave-iso2mesh-debuginfo-1.9.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm octave-iso2mesh-debugsource-1.9.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm octave-iso2mesh-1.9.1-1.fc32.src.rpm octave-iso2mesh.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) volumetric -> cliometric octave-iso2mesh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US volumetric -> cliometric octave-iso2mesh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modality -> morality, mortality octave-iso2mesh.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/share/octave/packages/iso2mesh-1.9.1/bin/meshfix ['/builddir/build/BUILD/iso2mesh-1.9.1/tools/meshfix/contrib/JMeshLib/lib'] octave-iso2mesh.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv octave-iso2mesh.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) volumetric -> cliometric octave-iso2mesh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US volumetric -> cliometric octave-iso2mesh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modality -> morality, mortality 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings. -- 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
