https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764175 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx Summary|Review Request: Elements - |Review Request: elements - |A C++/Python build |A C++/Python build |framework |framework Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Use a better name for your archive: Source0: https://github.com/degauden/Elements/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Use %global, not %define: %global cmakedir %{_libdir}/cmake/ElementsProject %global xmldir %{cmakedir} %global makedir %{_datadir}/Elements/make %global confdir %{_datadir}/Elements %global auxdir %{_datadir}/auxdir %global docdir %{_docdir}/Elements - I would simplify these: %dir %{cmakedir} %{cmakedir}/ElementsBuildFlags.cmake %{cmakedir}/ElementsCoverage.cmake %{cmakedir}/ElementsDocumentation.cmake %{cmakedir}/ElementsLocations.cmake %{cmakedir}/ElementsProjectConfig.cmake %{cmakedir}/ElementsToolChain.cmake %{cmakedir}/ElementsToolChainMacros.cmake %{cmakedir}/ElementsUninstall.cmake %{cmakedir}/ElementsUtils.cmake %{cmakedir}/ElementsInfo.cmake %{cmakedir}/ElementsExports-relwithdebinfo.cmake %{cmakedir}/ElementsServicesExport.cmake %{cmakedir}/SGSPlatform.cmake %{cmakedir}/auxdir %{cmakedir}/doc %{cmakedir}/modules %{cmakedir}/scripts %{cmakedir}/tests %{cmakedir}/ElementsExports.cmake %{cmakedir}/ElementsPlatformConfig.cmake %{cmakedir}/ElementsKernelExport.cmake %{cmakedir}/ElementsConfigVersion.cmake %{cmakedir}/ElementsConfig.cmake %dir %{makedir} %{makedir}/Elements.mk with: %{cmakedir} %{makedir} - Own this directory: [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/Elements %dir %{confdir} - Fix the changelog entry: elements.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.8-2 ['5.8-3.fc32', '5.8-3'] Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: 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: [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", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3.0 or later)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License GNU Lesser General Public License (v3.0 or later)", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License (v3.0 or later)". 166 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/elements/review-elements/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/Elements [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define cmakedir %{_libdir}/cmake/ElementsProject, %define xmldir %{cmakedir}, %define makedir %{_datadir}/Elements/make, %define confdir %{_datadir}/Elements, %define auxdir %{_datadir}/auxdir, %define docdir %{_docdir}/Elements [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. ===== 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: elements-5.8-3.fc32.x86_64.rpm elements-devel-5.8-3.fc32.x86_64.rpm elements-doc-5.8-3.fc32.noarch.rpm elements-debuginfo-5.8-3.fc32.x86_64.rpm elements-debugsource-5.8-3.fc32.x86_64.rpm elements-5.8-3.fc32.src.rpm elements.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary elements.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.8-2 ['5.8-3.fc32', '5.8-3'] elements.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libElementsKernel.so.5.8 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 elements.x86_64: W: no-documentation elements.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/auxdir/ElementsKernel/templates/Script_template.in 644 /bin/sh elements.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary AddCppClass elements.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary AddCppProgram elements.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary AddElementsModule elements.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary AddPythonModule elements.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary AddPythonProgram elements.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary AddScript elements.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CreateElementsProject elements.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ElementsNameCheck elements.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary GetElementsFiles elements.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary RemoveCppClass elements.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary RemoveCppProgram elements.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary RemovePythonModule elements.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary RemovePythonProgram elements-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation elements.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 19 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
