[Bug 1916936] Review Request: libdispatch - Apple's Grand Central Dispatch library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916936

Vasiliy Glazov <vascom2@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |POST
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #24 from Vasiliy Glazov <vascom2@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Approved.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_devel_packages


===== 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.
[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",
     "Apache License 2.0". 60 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/include/dispatch, /usr/include/os
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/dispatch,
     /usr/include/os
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[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]: 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:
[x]: 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]: 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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[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.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 2.9 starting (python version = 3.9.1, NVR =
mock-2.9-1.fc33)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 2.9
INFO: Mock Version: 2.9
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-debugsource-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-devel-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-debuginfo-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
--releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local
--disableplugin=spacewalk install
/home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-debugsource-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-devel-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
/home/vascom/1916936-libdispatch/results/libdispatch-debuginfo-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libdispatch-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          libdispatch-devel-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          libdispatch-debuginfo-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          libdispatch-debugsource-5.3.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          libdispatch-5.3.3-1.fc34.src.rpm
libdispatch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicore ->
multicolored
libdispatch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xnu -> nu, gnu, x
nu
libdispatch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pthread -> thread,
p thread
libdispatch.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.3.3-1
['1:5.3.3-1.fc34', '1:5.3.3-1']
libdispatch.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion libblocksruntime < 7.0.0-5 obsoletes
libblocksruntime = 5.3.3-1.fc34
libdispatch.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libBlocksRuntime.so
libBlocksRuntime.so
libdispatch.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libdispatch.so libdispatch.so
libdispatch-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libdispatch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicore ->
multicolored
libdispatch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xnu -> nu, gnu, x nu
libdispatch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pthread -> thread, p
thread
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings.




Unversioned so-files
--------------------
libdispatch: /usr/lib64/libBlocksRuntime.so
libdispatch: /usr/lib64/libdispatch.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-libdispatch/archive/swift-5.3.3-RELEASE.tar.gz#/corelibs-libdispatch.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
84a482afefdcda26c7dc83e3b75e662ed7705786a34a6b4958c0cdc6cace2c46
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
84a482afefdcda26c7dc83e3b75e662ed7705786a34a6b4958c0cdc6cace2c46


Requires
--------
libdispatch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libBlocksRuntime.so()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libdispatch-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libdispatch(x86-64)

libdispatch-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libdispatch-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
libdispatch:
    libBlocksRuntime.so()(64bit)
    libblocksruntime
    libdispatch
    libdispatch(x86-64)
    libdispatch.so()(64bit)

libdispatch-devel:
    libdispatch-devel
    libdispatch-devel(x86-64)

libdispatch-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libdispatch-debuginfo
    libdispatch-debuginfo(x86-64)

libdispatch-debugsource:
    libdispatch-debugsource
    libdispatch-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1916936
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, Java, Perl, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell,
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux