https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430 --- Comment #2 from Carl George 🤠 <carl@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I tried to run fedora-review on this, but it failed to build (see the item below about missing build requirements). Here is a partial manual review of what I've noticed so far. - Using 0.1 for the Release field is fine during the review, but it should be raised to 1 before being imported into dist-git. After that it should always be 1 or higher [0], unless packaging a prerelease version or git snapshot. - Remove all instances of `(R)` from the Summary field and the %description sections [1]. - The INSTALL file indicates a complicated licensing situation [2]. All of these licenses must be reflected in the License field, using the combined scenario guidelines [3]. I also noticed that the INSTALL file mentions a LICENSE.GPL file, but that does not exist upstream. Could you assist in getting it added? - Source0 is not following the recommended format [4]. It should look like this: https://github.com/intel/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - There are multiple missing build requirements. I can tell at least these are missing: autoconf automake libtool systemd-devel openssl-devel zlib-devel - RPM will automatically adds requirements for several glibc virtual provides, so the explicit requires for glibc is redundant and must be removed [5]. - The requires for /sbin/ldconfig and invoking that during the %post/%preun/%postun scriptlets should be removed [6]. - The devel package's requirement on the base package must be arch-specific [7]. - Rather than conditionally running autogen.sh during %build, it would be better to always run `autoreconf -vif` during %prep. - There is a lot going on during %install. Is there a Makefile target we could use instead to improve spec file legibility [8]? - The %pre scriptlet should use the template for dynamic allocation [9]. - Man pages must be referenced with a wildcard pattern to allow RPM to use its preferred compression format (which may not be gz in the future) [10]. - The `%files devel` section can be trimmed down by using just `%{_includedir}/qat` (which is recursive), rather than the directory and globbing all the files in the directory. - The version in the changelog entry (2010u) doesn't match the Version field. [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_simple_versioning [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_trademarks_in_summary_or_description [2] https://github.com/intel/qatlib/blob/20.08.0/INSTALL#L33-L46 [3] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_combined_dual_and_multiple_licensing_scenario [4] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags [5] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_requires [6] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries [7] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package [8] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_legibility [9] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UsersAndGroups/#_dynamic_allocation [10] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages -- 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
