https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881782 --- Comment #6 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- Fresh Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53169430 I think that the artifacts from the previous one were removed. > According to upstream developer, most users won't use the unit test. So here I updated the spec and src.rpm again to remove the test stuff: I would add tests under %check if possible. > BuildRequires: autoconf > BuildRequires: asciidoc > BuildRequires: xmlto > BuildRequires: automake > BuildRequires: libtool > BuildRequires: pkgconfig > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libkmod) > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(uuid) > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(json-c) > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libudev) > BuildRequires: systemd "gcc" and/or "gcc-c++"" are missing from this list. > %description > Utility library for configuring the accelerator subsystem. > > %package -n %{name}-devel It's not necessary to explicitly name subpackages like this if they begin with %{name}. It's enough to declare them like this: > %package devel The same is true for the %files block and other blocks which require package names. > %package -n %{name}-libs > Summary: Configuration library for accelerator subsystem devices > License: LGPLv2 Are the libs useful in any way outside of the main "accel-config" package? If not, they should contain the following line: > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Or was it made so one can use only "accel-config-devel” and not be bothered with the main package when developing software including accel-config headers and/or linking against the SO files? > %post -n %{name}-libs -p /sbin/ldconfig > > %postun -n %{name}-libs -p /sbin/ldconfig These ldconfig calls ought to be removed. > %files > %license Documentation/COPYING licenses/BSD-MIT licenses/CC0 The License field contains only "GPLv2" and "LGPLv2" for the -devel and -libs subpackages. If the package is licensed using several licenses, all of them need to be included in the License field and their breakdown indicated in a comment above that line. Other potential issues are covered in the main review body: 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++/ - ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in accel-config-libs See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [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", "GPL (v2)", "GNU General Public License (v2) GNU Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright* Expat License". 89 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/accel-config/accel- config/licensecheck.txt Review: mentioned in an earlier comment. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/accel-config Review: Should probably be owned by the main package. Add it to %files. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/accel-config Review: As above. [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 [?]: 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. Review: ExclusiveArchs correctly used. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Review: see earlier comments and errors. [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]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in accel- config-devel , accel-config-libs Review: see earlier comments. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. Review: mentioned earlier. [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]: 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. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: accel-config-2.8-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm accel-config-devel-2.8-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm accel-config-libs-2.8-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm accel-config-debuginfo-2.8-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm accel-config-debugsource-2.8-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm accel-config-2.8-1.fc32.src.rpm accel-config.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/accel-config/accel-config.conf.sample accel-config-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libaccfg -> celibacy accel-config-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation accel-config-libs.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: accel-config-debuginfo-2.8-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm accel-config-libs-debuginfo-2.8-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name accel-config-debugsource (none): E: no installed packages by name accel-config (none): E: no installed packages by name accel-config-devel (none): E: no installed packages by name accel-config-libs-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name accel-config-libs (none): E: no installed packages by name accel-config-debuginfo 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/intel/idxd-config/archive/accel-config-v2.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c8aa8421179b71fb728806e5a621655fab24a862f9ce982f3119b92da416949f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c8aa8421179b71fb728806e5a621655fab24a862f9ce982f3119b92da416949f Requires -------- accel-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): accel-config-libs(x86-64) libaccel-config.so.1()(64bit) libaccel-config.so.1(LIBACCFG_1)(64bit) libaccel-config.so.1(LIBACCFG_3)(64bit) libaccel-config.so.1(LIBACCFG_4)(64bit) libaccel-config.so.1(LIBACCFG_6)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libjson-c.so.5()(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) accel-config-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config accel-config-libs(x86-64) libaccel-config.so.1()(64bit) accel-config-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libkmod.so.2()(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1()(64bit) libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) accel-config-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): accel-config-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- accel-config: accel-config accel-config(x86-64) accel-config-devel: accel-config-devel accel-config-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libaccel-config) accel-config-libs: accel-config-libs accel-config-libs(x86-64) libaccel-config.so.1()(64bit) libaccel-config.so.1(LIBACCFG_1)(64bit) libaccel-config.so.1(LIBACCFG_3)(64bit) libaccel-config.so.1(LIBACCFG_4)(64bit) libaccel-config.so.1(LIBACCFG_5)(64bit) libaccel-config.so.1(LIBACCFG_6)(64bit) accel-config-debuginfo: accel-config-debuginfo accel-config-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) accel-config-debugsource: accel-config-debugsource accel-config-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
