https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808276 Artem <ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Artem <ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx> --- 1. Drop date from: Version: 0.1.3.20200211 -> Version: 0.1.3 Also the latest version should been packaged which is 0.1.4. 2. Drop 'wef' from: Release: 1%{?dist}.wef -> Release: 1%{?dist} 3. Source URL incorrect and not downloadable: Source0: https://github.com/YukiWorkshop/libuInputPlus/archive/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz -> Source0: %{url}/-/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz 4. Use new line for every BR. It's easier for patch/diff and for better readability. Also please sort it in alphabetical order. BuildRequires: cmake make gcc-c++ -> BuildRequires: cmake BuildRequires: gcc-c++ BuildRequires: make 5. Add dot into the end of description: Library required for ydotool -> Library required for ydotool. 6. Instead of build dir better use: mkdir build -> mkdir -p %{_target_platform} 7. Instead of cd us pushd/popd: cd build -> pushd %{_target_platform} 8. Use cmake macros and do not hardcode paths: cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr .. -> %cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{_prefix} .. 9. Use macros for make: %make_build https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_parallel_make 10. Add %install section before %make_install 11. You need to own dir, do not glob here: %{_includedir}/* -> %{_includedir}/uInputPlus/ 12. Seems like there is test persist in this project. Run tests in %check section https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_test_suites 13. Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages 14. --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: libevdevPlus. Illegal package name: libevdevPlus. Does not provide -static: libevdevPlus. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries ===== 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]: 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. 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", "Expat License". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/data- linux/tmp/review/1808278-libevdevPlus/licensecheck.txt [!]: %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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/YukiWorkshop/libevdevPlus/archive/libevdevPlus-0.1.0.20200211.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [x]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: libevdevPlus : /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/evdevPlus.pc [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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. [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]: 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]: 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: libevdevPlus-0.1.0.20200211-1.fc33.wef.x86_64.rpm libevdevPlus-0.1.0.20200211-1.fc33.wef.src.rpm libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ydotool -> footstool libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ydotool -> footstool libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.0.20200211-1.fc31.wef ['0.1.0.20200211-1.fc33.wef', '0.1.0.20200211-1.wef'] libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libevdevPlus.so.0.1.0 libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/evdevPlus/CommonIncludes.hpp libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/evdevPlus/InputEvent.hpp libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/evdevPlus/evdevPlus.hpp libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libevdevPlus.a libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libevdevPlus.so libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/evdevPlus.pc libevdevPlus.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ydotool -> footstool libevdevPlus.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ydotool -> footstool libevdevPlus.src: W: no-%install-section libevdevPlus.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/YukiWorkshop/libevdevPlus/archive/libevdevPlus-0.1.0.20200211.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 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 = "ru_UA.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 = "ru_UA.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ydotool -> footstool libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ydotool -> footstool libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.0.20200211-1.fc31.wef ['0.1.0.20200211-1.fc33.wef', '0.1.0.20200211-1.wef'] libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libevdevPlus.so.0.1.0 libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libevdevPlus.so.0.1.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/evdevPlus/CommonIncludes.hpp libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/evdevPlus/InputEvent.hpp libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/evdevPlus/evdevPlus.hpp libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libevdevPlus.a libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libevdevPlus.so libevdevPlus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/evdevPlus.pc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- libevdevPlus: /usr/lib64/libevdevPlus.so Requires -------- libevdevPlus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libc.so.6()(64bit) libevdevPlus.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libevdevPlus: libevdevPlus libevdevPlus(x86-64) libevdevPlus.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig(evdevPlus) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1808278 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, R, Perl, Python, PHP 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
