https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884943 Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola@xxxxxx> --- There is a number of minor issues. The package has been APPROVED by jussilehtola provided the issues below are rectified before import to the Fedora build system. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. licensecheck reports "Expat license". License is MIT "Modern style with sublicense", https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense [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". 653 files have unknown license. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. The common package should require -libs for the license. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Changelog is not in predescribed format. Also the comment is wrong: this is not the initial import (which would be the git commit message for import), but the initial version of the packaging! [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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). This is an aesthetic issue, but the use of curly brackets is inconsistent: %build %{cmake} %cmake_build [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 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]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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 libecpint-common As noted above, add this. [?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libecpint-1.0.2-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libecpint-common-1.0.2-1.fc34.noarch.rpm libecpint-devel-1.0.2-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libecpint-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libecpint-debugsource-1.0.2-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libecpint-1.0.2-1.fc34.src.rpm libecpint.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) initio -> initiation libecpint.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initio -> initiation libecpint.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libFaddeeva.so.1 libecpint-common.noarch: W: no-documentation libecpint-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary libecpint-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libecpint.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) initio -> initiation libecpint.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initio -> initiation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Not sure what the libc warning is, since I get $ ldd libFaddeeva.so.1 linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffe88f61000) libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x00007f88532ba000) libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007f885329f000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f88530d5000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f885343a000) Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libecpint-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. libecpint-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/robashaw/libecpint <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. libecpint-common.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/robashaw/libecpint <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> libecpint-common.noarch: W: no-documentation warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. libecpint-devel.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary libecpint-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/robashaw/libecpint <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> libecpint-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. libecpint-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/robashaw/libecpint <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. libecpint.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) initio -> initiation libecpint.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initio -> initiation libecpint.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/robashaw/libecpint <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> libecpint.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libFaddeeva.so.1 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/robashaw/libecpint/archive/v1.0.2.tar.gz#/libecpint-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2fb73af4d30a40bdd9df9e04b1f762c38ab7ed3a39c11509f3f87250fe0b5778 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2fb73af4d30a40bdd9df9e04b1f762c38ab7ed3a39c11509f3f87250fe0b5778 Requires -------- libecpint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libFaddeeva.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libecpint-common libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpugixml.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libecpint-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libecpint-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libFaddeeva.so.1()(64bit) libecpint(x86-64) libecpint.so.1()(64bit) libecpint-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libecpint-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libecpint: libFaddeeva.so.1()(64bit) libecpint libecpint(x86-64) libecpint.so.1()(64bit) libecpint-common: libecpint-common libecpint-devel: cmake(ecpint) libecpint-devel libecpint-devel(x86-64) libecpint-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libecpint-debuginfo libecpint-debuginfo(x86-64) libecpint-debugsource: libecpint-debugsource libecpint-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /tmp/1884943-libecpint/srpm/libecpint.spec 2020-10-06 08:26:21.518955796 -0400 +++ /tmp/1884943-libecpint/srpm-unpacked/libecpint.spec 2020-10-03 15:59:47.000000000 -0400 @@ -47,5 +47,4 @@ %check -# https://github.com/robashaw/libecpint/issues/14 %ifarch aarch64 ppc64le s390x %global testargs --exclude-regex HessTest2 -- 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
