https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876660 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - License seems to be ASL 2.0 with exceptions: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/flang/LICENSE.txt - This compilation kills my old laptop :| - URL: http://flang.llvm.org is 404 - You need arch info here (isa) %package devel Summary: Flang header files Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - RPath bad: flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/f18 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/tco ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFIROptimizer.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFortranCommon.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFortranDecimal.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFortranEvaluate.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libFortranLower.so.11 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFortranLower.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFortranParser.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libFortranRuntime.so.11 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFortranRuntime.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFortranSemantics.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] With Cmake it should be as easy as passing: -DCMAKE_SKIP_RPATH:BOOL=YES -DCMAKE_SKIP_INSTALL_RPATH:BOOL=YES - Don't repeat the name in the Summary: flang.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Flang - Remove trailing tab here: URL: http://flang.llvm.org (flang.src:78: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 78, tab: line 14) ) - Permissions should be 0755: flang.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/bin/flang 700 flang.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/flang 700 - Own %{_pkgdocdir} [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/flang Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_file_permissions ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Note: See rpmlint output [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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [!]: 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* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 927 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/flang/review- flang/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/doc/flang [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. [x]: 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]: 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 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]: 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 ===== 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in flang- devel [?]: 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. [-]: 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]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: flang-11.0.0-0.1.rc2.fc34.x86_64.rpm flang-devel-11.0.0-0.1.rc2.fc34.x86_64.rpm flang-doc-11.0.0-0.1.rc2.fc34.noarch.rpm flang-debuginfo-11.0.0-0.1.rc2.fc34.x86_64.rpm flang-debugsource-11.0.0-0.1.rc2.fc34.x86_64.rpm flang-11.0.0-0.1.rc2.fc34.src.rpm flang.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Flang flang.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://flang.llvm.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/f18 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/tco ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFIROptimizer.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFortranCommon.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFortranDecimal.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFortranEvaluate.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libFortranLower.so.11 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFortranLower.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFortranParser.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libFortranRuntime.so.11 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFortranRuntime.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libFortranSemantics.so.11 ['$ORIGIN/../lib64'] flang.x86_64: W: no-documentation flang.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/bin/flang 700 flang.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/flang 700 flang.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary f18 flang.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flang flang.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tco flang-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://flang.llvm.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> flang-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation flang-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://flang.llvm.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> flang-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/flang/html/objects.inv flang-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://flang.llvm.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> flang-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://flang.llvm.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> flang.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Flang flang.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://flang.llvm.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> flang.src:78: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 78, tab: line 14) 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 17 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
