https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823419 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #21 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Add an explicit BR for gcc - [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: gnucobol-3.1-dev/configure.ac:378 Patch this with LT_INIT instead and suggest patch upstream.kk Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: gnucobol : /usr/include/libcob.h gnucobol : /usr/include/libcob/cobgetopt.h gnucobol : /usr/include/libcob/common.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages - 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 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "FSF All Permissive License", "GPL (v3 or later)", "GNU General Public License GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "Expat License", "GPL (v7)", "GNU Free Documentation License (v1.3 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License GNU Lesser General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License (v2)". 124 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gnucobol/review-gnucobol/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 5 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]: 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 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: [-]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libcob [?]: 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. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define cobvers 3.1 [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1085440 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnucobol-3.1-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm libcob-3.1-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm gnucobol-debuginfo-3.1-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm gnucobol-debugsource-3.1-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm gnucobol-3.1-2.fc33.src.rpm gnucobol.x86_64: E: devel-dependency glibc-devel gnucobol.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/gnucobol/CBL_OC_DUMP.so gnucobol.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/cob-config gnucobol.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/libcob.h gnucobol.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/libcob/cobgetopt.h gnucobol.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/libcob/common.h gnucobol.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libcob.so libcob.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/gnucobol/CBL_OC_DUMP.so libcob.x86_64: W: no-documentation gnucobol.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name} gnucobol.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name} gnucobol.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{cobvers} gnucobol.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 11: %{name}/%{name}-%{cobvers}.tar.gz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 9 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
