https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292 code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c | |om) --- Comment #11 from code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Almost there! So close! I’m glad you’ve been willing to do the work to get this package compliant with the Guidelines. It will be a good addition to Fedora. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== [!]: The “Requires: pkgconfig” in the -devel subpackage is not needed. The appropriate dependency to provide %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ is added automatically when you install a .pc file there. This fact is not documented in the Guidelines; I learned it in a review of one of my own packages. [!]: According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures, you must place a full description of the i686 build failure above the ExcludeArch in a comment, with all the detail that you would put in a bug report. As soon as the package is approved, you must file a bug blocking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=F-ExcludeArch-x86, at which point you can replace this description comment with a comment that simply links to the bug. It would be best to file an upstream bug as well, since this issue does not appear to be Fedora-specific. [!]: Rpmlint found mixed spaces and tabs in the spec file. You can convert all tabs to spaces with “sed -i -r 's/\t/ /' tkrzw.spec” or, in vim, “:set et” followed by “:retab”. Or if you prefer all tabs, that is fine too. ===== 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]: 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. [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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/tkrzw/1914292-tkrzw/re- review/1914292-tkrzw/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Unnecessary Requires on pkgconfig from -devel; this is automatically added when a .pc file is installed in the usual location. [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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Known ExcludeArch on 32-bit x86. Must follow https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as otherwise noted) [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]: 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: [-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tkrzw- libs , tkrzw-devel [x]: 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. [-]: 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. Known ExcludeArch on 32-bit x86. Must follow https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. Skipped tests are justified. [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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: tkrzw-0.9.3-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-libs-0.9.3-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-devel-0.9.3-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-doc-0.9.3-3.fc34.noarch.rpm tkrzw-debuginfo-0.9.3-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-debugsource-0.9.3-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-0.9.3-3.fc34.src.rpm tkrzw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability tkrzw-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation tkrzw-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation tkrzw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability tkrzw.src:64: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 64, tab: line 3) 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tkrzw-libs-debuginfo-0.9.3-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm tkrzw-debuginfo-0.9.3-3.fc34.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- tkrzw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability tkrzw-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation tkrzw-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://dbmx.net/tkrzw/pkg/tkrzw-0.9.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 945b978402425de6f4cb156544ddf34d928b28100ff93d931816eec3b51be9aa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 945b978402425de6f4cb156544ddf34d928b28100ff93d931816eec3b51be9aa Requires -------- tkrzw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tkrzw-libs(x86-64) tkrzw-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tkrzw-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig tkrzw-libs(x86-64) tkrzw-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): tkrzw-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): tkrzw-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- tkrzw: tkrzw tkrzw(x86-64) tkrzw-libs: libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit) tkrzw-libs tkrzw-libs(x86-64) tkrzw-devel: pkgconfig(tkrzw) tkrzw-devel tkrzw-devel(x86-64) tkrzw-doc: tkrzw-doc tkrzw-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) tkrzw-debuginfo tkrzw-debuginfo(x86-64) tkrzw-debugsource: tkrzw-debugsource tkrzw-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1914292 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Java, R, PHP, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, Python 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
