https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891961 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1891961-uARMSolver/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ^ Please ensure that the srpm is generated from the spec that you've uploaded. - Please move to the %files section after the %install section, and before the changelog. The suggested order is: %prep %build %install %files %changelog - More comments below. ===== 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 is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: 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. ^ Please include the license file in the %files section so that they're included in the rpm. Please add this to the files section: %license LICENSE [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", "*No copyright* Expat License". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1891961-uARMSolver/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ^ License not currently included. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Compiler flags are not used. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags + make Invoking: GCC C++ Compiler g++ -I./sources -O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0 -MMD -MP -MF"Archive.d" -MT"Archive.o" -o "Archive.o" "sources/Archive.cpp" Finished building: sources/Archive.cpp .... This is because the Makefile hard-codes CFLAGS (but doesn't then use these), so the Makefile needs some patching: CFLAGS = -O0 -g3 -Wall ... $(CC) -I./sources -O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0 -MMD -MP -MF"$(@:%.o=%.d)" -MT"$(@)" -o "$@" "$<" ^ Should use $CFLAGS [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. ^ The changlog should say 0.1-1 (version-release), since for each release a new changelog needs to be added. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs (Also pointed out by rpmlint) [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 [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ^ Some issues to be looked into. [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]: 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]: 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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{!_smp_mflags} macro. ^ Please use %make_build, which will include the -jX bit automatically [-]: 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). ^ Looks OK, but please double-check [!]: Package functions as described. ^ Not tested. [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. ^ Checked on x86_64 here, but we'll check with Koji on all arches also. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. ^ Please add the -p flag in the install command to preserve time stamps. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). ^ - Please wrap the description so that the length of each line is 80 characters at most. (You can run `rpmlint -i` on the spec, srpm and the generated rpms to get verbose notes.) - Could the description be improved too? It speaks about a framework but the package provides a binary tool? So it's not really clear: is the tool the framework? - Please include some documentation: perhaps a man page or just a text file with some instructions for users? - Please use tabs or spaces consistently, and do not mix them. [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: uARMSolver-0.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm uARMSolver-debuginfo-0.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm uARMSolver-debugsource-0.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm uARMSolver-0.1-1.fc34.src.rpm uARMSolver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocess -> reprocess, p reprocess, processors uARMSolver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US discretization -> discretionary, discretion, discrimination uARMSolver.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The framework is written fully in C++ and runs on all platforms. It allows users to preprocess their data in a transaction database, to make discretization of data, to search for association rules and to guide a presentation/visualization of the best rules found using external tools. As opposed to the existing software packages or frameworks, this also supports numerical and real-valued types of attributes besides the categorical ones. Mining the association rules is defined as an optimization and solved using the nature-inspired algorithms that can be incorporated easily. Because the algorithms normally discover a huge amount of association rules, the framework enables a modular inclusion of so-called visual guiders for extracting the knowledge hidden in data, and visualize these using external tools. uARMSolver.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1 ['0.1-1.fc34', '0.1-1'] uARMSolver.x86_64: W: no-documentation uARMSolver.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uARMSolver uARMSolver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocess -> reprocess, p reprocess, processors uARMSolver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US discretization -> discretionary, discretion, discrimination uARMSolver.src: E: description-line-too-long C The framework is written fully in C++ and runs on all platforms. It allows users to preprocess their data in a transaction database, to make discretization of data, to search for association rules and to guide a presentation/visualization of the best rules found using external tools. As opposed to the existing software packages or frameworks, this also supports numerical and real-valued types of attributes besides the categorical ones. Mining the association rules is defined as an optimization and solved using the nature-inspired algorithms that can be incorporated easily. Because the algorithms normally discover a huge amount of association rules, the framework enables a modular inclusion of so-called visual guiders for extracting the knowledge hidden in data, and visualize these using external tools. uARMSolver.src:6: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 1) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: uARMSolver-debuginfo-0.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- uARMSolver-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/uARMSolver <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> uARMSolver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocess -> reprocess, p reprocess, processors uARMSolver.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US discretization -> discretionary, discretion, discrimination uARMSolver.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The framework is written fully in C++ and runs on all platforms. It allows users to preprocess their data in a transaction database, to make discretization of data, to search for association rules and to guide a presentation/visualization of the best rules found using external tools. As opposed to the existing software packages or frameworks, this also supports numerical and real-valued types of attributes besides the categorical ones. Mining the association rules is defined as an optimization and solved using the nature-inspired algorithms that can be incorporated easily. Because the algorithms normally discover a huge amount of association rules, the framework enables a modular inclusion of so-called visual guiders for extracting the knowledge hidden in data, and visualize these using external tools. uARMSolver.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1 ['0.1-1.fc34', '0.1-1'] uARMSolver.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/uARMSolver <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> uARMSolver.x86_64: W: no-documentation uARMSolver.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uARMSolver uARMSolver-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/uARMSolver <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/firefly-cpp/uARMSolver/archive/uARMSolver-0.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a4020f9ba78527dcd2bd8e4880081f30664012519f282c3570138925bb5240a5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2d115b6567c9051300608db976daf967830b71a80c05027822128a05340d2ff4 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- uARMSolver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) uARMSolver-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): uARMSolver-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- uARMSolver: uARMSolver uARMSolver(x86-64) uARMSolver-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) uARMSolver-debuginfo uARMSolver-debuginfo(x86-64) uARMSolver-debugsource: uARMSolver-debugsource uARMSolver-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1891961 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Python, Java, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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
