[Bug 1813563] Review Request: libpasraw - Pascal interface to libraw

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813563



--- Comment #3 from Antonio T. (sagitter) <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======

- LICENSE file reports a GPLv3

- incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc
['1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33', '1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc']

- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
  /home/sagitter/1813563-libpasraw/diff.txt
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/

- Please, create a devel subpackage and include an symbolic link `libpasraw.so`
pointed to `libpasraw.so.1.1`
  The source code should generate/include header files too, and installed
together the unversioned library.
  Ask to upstream.

- Use the patch to not install anything under `share/doc/libpasraw`, use only
%doc to mark the documentation files.

- Linker flags are not used; use a patch like that attached and set the LDLAGS.

- This package provides a library earlier included in `libpasastro-1.2.*`; i
guess it's better this way:

new `libpasastro = 1.3.0-1` must 

 BuildRequires: libpasraw-devel >= 0:1.3.0-1
 Requires: libpasraw%{?_isa} >= 0:1.3.0-1

meanwhile, `libpasraw = 1.3.0-1` will be always installed because needed by new
`libpasastro >= 1.3.0-1`, 
so it won't be ever **in conflict** with `libpasastro < 1.3.0-1` because
they're never installed at the same time.

===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 43 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     /home/sagitter/1813563-libpasraw/licensecheck.txt
[?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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.
[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.
[?]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: 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 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]: 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).
[ ]: 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.
[-]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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: libpasraw-1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          libpasraw-debuginfo-1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          libpasraw-debugsource-1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          libpasraw-1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33.src.rpm
libpasraw.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libraw -> lib raw, lib-raw,
library
libpasraw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libraw -> lib raw,
lib-raw, library
libpasraw.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc
['1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33', '1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc']
libpasraw.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found
libpasraw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found
libpasraw-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found
libpasraw.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libraw -> lib raw, lib-raw,
library
libpasraw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libraw -> lib raw,
lib-raw, library
libpasraw.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libpasraw-debuginfo-1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33.x86_64.rpm
libpasraw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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").
libpasraw-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
libpasraw-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
libpasraw.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libraw -> lib raw, lib-raw,
library
libpasraw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libraw -> lib raw,
lib-raw, library
libpasraw.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc
['1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc.fc33', '1.3.0-1.20200302gitdbbe4cc']
libpasraw.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/libpasraw/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
libpasraw.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libpasraw.so.1.1
/lib64/libstdc++.so.6
libpasraw.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libpasraw.so.1.1
/lib64/libm.so.6
libpasraw.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libpasraw.so.1.1
/lib64/libgcc_s.so.1
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pchev/libpasraw/archive/dbbe4ccc717f9aed4efd0841ceb88a5825c3463d/libpasraw-1.3.0.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
108a324450932fb8c6c84193e8bb3b45c6b3db9e7b757acf986c33d0b4ddf40c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ea9b5880398177e769c163a055fc42842bf9190150a3afc8d6cc872380821d69
diff -r also reports differences


Requires
--------
libpasraw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libraw.so.19()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libpasraw-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libpasraw-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libpasraw:
    libpasraw
    libpasraw(x86-64)
    libpasraw.so.1()(64bit)

libpasraw-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libpasraw-debuginfo
    libpasraw-debuginfo(x86-64)

libpasraw-debugsource:
    libpasraw-debugsource
    libpasraw-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1813563
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, PHP, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell,
Java
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux