https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617 --- Comment #21 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Looks pretty good. A few issues are noted below. Once clarified, this can be approved. 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/ ^ Please check this---fedora review failed to install the packages. - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 5703680 bytes in 190 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation ^ This is in a demos sub-package so that's OK. - octave-mmc has a mex file, so it should not be noarch, should it. Please check. The files should go to %octpkglibdir instead of %octpkgdir too. - Why is vim-common a BuildRequires? - Do we know what versions of libraries are being bundled here? If so, please version the Provides commands for them. - if SFMT is not being used, please delete it's source directory in %prep. This is done to ensure that it does not get enabled by mistake during a rebuild etc. - Cosmetic: you don't need to repeat BuildRequires in the sub-package definitions. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. ^ The build log has lots of compiler warnings, though. Please take a look. [-]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. ^ Not tested [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: 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. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [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. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.4.20 starting (python version = 3.7.5)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.20 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.20 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-debugsource-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-debuginfo-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/octave-mmclab-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmclab-demos-1.7.9-1.fc32.noarch.rpm /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-demos-1.7.9-1.fc32.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 32 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-debugsource-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-debuginfo-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/octave-mmclab-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmclab-demos-1.7.9-1.fc32.noarch.rpm /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1760617-mmc/results/mmc-demos-1.7.9-1.fc32.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: mmc-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm octave-mmclab-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm mmclab-demos-1.7.9-1.fc32.noarch.rpm mmc-demos-1.7.9-1.fc32.noarch.rpm mmc-debuginfo-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm mmc-debugsource-1.7.9-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm mmc-1.7.9-1.fc32.src.rpm mmc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mmc octave-mmclab.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/octave/packages/mmclab-1.7.9/mmcl.mex octave-mmclab.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun mv mmclab-demos.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) datasets -> data sets, data-sets, databases mmclab-demos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets -> data sets, data-sets, databases mmc-demos.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) datasets -> data sets, data-sets, databases mmc-demos.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets -> data sets, data-sets, databases mmc.src:15: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(ssemath) mmc.src:16: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(cjson) 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fangq/mmc/archive/v1.7.9/mmc-1.7.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5c30e86d60cae5d9233165ed50684ae7bb37b5a503266c3aceacd07fca3c85fd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5c30e86d60cae5d9233165ed50684ae7bb37b5a503266c3aceacd07fca3c85fd Requires -------- mmc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libOpenCL.so.1()(64bit) libOpenCL.so.1(OPENCL_1.0)(64bit) libOpenCL.so.1(OPENCL_1.2)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) octave octave-iso2mesh opencl-filesystem rtld(GNU_HASH) octave-mmclab (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libOpenCL.so.1()(64bit) libOpenCL.so.1(OPENCL_1.0)(64bit) libOpenCL.so.1(OPENCL_1.2)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) octave octave-iso2mesh opencl-filesystem rtld(GNU_HASH) mmclab-demos (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): octave octave-iso2mesh octave-mmclab mmc-demos (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): octave octave-iso2mesh mmc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mmc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mmc: bundled(cjson) bundled(ssemath) mmc mmc(x86-64) octave-mmclab: octave-mmclab octave-mmclab(x86-64) mmclab-demos: mmclab-demos mmc-demos: mmc-demos mmc-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) mmc-debuginfo mmc-debuginfo(x86-64) mmc-debugsource: mmc-debugsource mmc-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1760617 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }} Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, R, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, Python, Haskell, Ocaml, 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
