https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376511 --- Comment #12 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48423183 > License: LGPLv2+ > URL: http://www.nexusformat.org/ > Source0: https://github.com/nexusformat/code/archive/v4.4.3.tar.gz - Use the %{version} macro in the Source0 tag. - Either use an alias for the archive or try this url in your Source0 field: https://github.com/nexusformat/code/archive/v4.4.3/code-v4.4.3.tar.gz With macros it would look like this: https://github.com/nexusformat/code/archive/v%{version}/code-v%{version}.tar.gz > BuildRequires: hdf5-devel > BuildRequires: hdf-devel > BuildRequires: make > BuildRequires: mxml-devel Check whether it's possible to replace the various -devel package BuildRequires with "pkgconfig(foo)" like mentioned here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PkgConfigBuildRequires/ Inspect subpackages as well. > %files devel > %{_includedir}/nexus/ > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ - Does the cmake build generate cmake files? If so, these should also be included in the -devel subpackage. They usually sit in a dir like "%{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/" - The pkgconfig line should be more specific, otherwise you're covering the entire pkgconfig dir. > %files tools > %{_bindir}/nxbrowse > %{_bindir}/nxconvert > %{_bindir}/nxdir > %{_bindir}/nxsummary > %{_bindir}/nxtranslate > %{_bindir}/nxtraverse > %doc %{_datadir}/doc/NeXus/programs/ > %{_mandir}/man1/ I would list the manpages explicitly. You can use wildcards, though. > %post -p /sbin/ldconfig > %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig Calling ldconfig explicitly is no longer needed and these calls should be removed. Full review matrix below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in nexus See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets Review: see earlier comment. - 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 Review: I think this is related to the "%{_libdir}/libNeXus*" line in the main package. SO files in main packages should have a version number. Check above guidelines for reference. - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Review: LICENSE file not included in the package, though available? - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: nexus. Illegal package name: nexus. Does not provide -static: nexus. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries Review: see the below rpmlint reports. ===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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 (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License", "zlib/libpng license", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GPL (v2)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)". 347 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/nexus/nexus/licensecheck.txt Review: There is a single file under LGPLv3+ code-4.4.3/applications/c-nxvalidate/NXxrotflat.nxdl.xml: GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later) [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Review: no license file provided. [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 Review: see rpmlint report. [?]: 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. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. Review: see earlier comments regarding owning directories. [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. [?]: 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 40960 bytes in 9 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Review: see earlier comments about owned directories. [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Review: license file available, but not included. [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. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Review: some patches require extra links if available. [-]: 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]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nexus-4.4.3-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm nexus-devel-4.4.3-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm nexus-tools-4.4.3-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm nexus-debuginfo-4.4.3-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm nexus-debugsource-4.4.3-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm nexus-4.4.3-3.fc33.src.rpm nexus.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C NeXus nexus.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US muon -> mun, moon, mu on nexus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libNeXus.a nexus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libNeXus.so nexus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libNeXusCPP.a nexus.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libNeXusCPP.so nexus-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation nexus-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/nexus/napi.h nexus-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/nexus/napiu.h nexus-tools.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxml2 nexus-tools.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Applications for reading and writing NeXus files. nexus-tools.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1 nexus-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nxtranslate nexus-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nxtraverse nexus.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C NeXus nexus.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US muon -> mun, moon, mu on nexus.src:22: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 5, tab: line 22) nexus.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Sat Aug 02 2020 Stuart Campbell <sic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 4.4.3-3 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 13 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: nexus-debuginfo-4.4.3-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm nexus-tools-debuginfo-4.4.3-3.fc33.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name nexus-tools (none): E: no installed packages by name nexus-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name nexus-devel (none): E: no installed packages by name nexus (none): E: no installed packages by name nexus-debugsource (none): E: no installed packages by name nexus-tools-debuginfo 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- nexus: /usr/lib64/libNeXus.so nexus: /usr/lib64/libNeXusCPP.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/nexusformat/code/archive/v4.4.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e78a116feb2ebd04de31a8d8707c65e8e15a64aa8999a40fea305e3909bd6533 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e78a116feb2ebd04de31a8d8707c65e8e15a64aa8999a40fea305e3909bd6533 Requires -------- nexus (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig hdf hdf5 libNeXus.so.1()(64bit) libNeXusCPP.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdf.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libhdf5.so.103()(64bit) libmfhdf.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) mxml rtld(GNU_HASH) nexus-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config hdf-devel hdf5-devel nexus(x86-64) pkgconfig(nexus) nexus-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libNeXus.so.1()(64bit) libNeXusCPP.so.1()(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) libm.so.6()(64bit) libreadline.so.8()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libxml2 libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit) nexus(x86-64) readline rtld(GNU_HASH) nexus-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nexus-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- nexus: libNeXus.so.1()(64bit) libNeXusCPP.so.1()(64bit) nexus nexus(x86-64) nexus-devel: nexus-devel nexus-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(nexus) pkgconfig(nexus-cpp) pkgconfig(nexus-f77) nexus-tools: nexus-tools nexus-tools(x86-64) nexus-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) nexus-debuginfo nexus-debuginfo(x86-64) nexus-debugsource: nexus-debugsource nexus-debugsource(x86-64) -- 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
