https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918269 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Ok, that worked. Full review done, with the help of fedora-review; and with the parts which fedora-review does not do automatically filled in manually. I have found 2 small issues: 1. The tests-examples package should have its own License tag, which should be these 2 lines: # The fxload example is GPLv2+, the rest is LGPLv2+, like libusb itself. License: LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ 2. The devel-doc subpkg can be installed without the %license being brought in by deps. Please make it have a Requires on the devel subpackage (or add the %license to its %files). 3. The package really should have a "BuildRequires: gcc" atm this is being brought in by the libtool BR, but it would be good to be explicit here. I trust that you will fix at least 1. and 2. before importing this, so this packages is Approved. See below for all the review-checks done: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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 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 (LGPLv2+) (tests-examples subpackage license is wrong, fxload is GPLv2+) [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. (devel-docs can be installed without the %license being installed) [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 below). [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 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 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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. [x]: Package functions as described. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [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: libusb1-1.0.24-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libusb1-devel-1.0.24-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libusb1-devel-doc-1.0.24-1.fc34.noarch.rpm libusb1-tests-examples-1.0.24-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libusb1-debuginfo-1.0.24-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libusb1-debugsource-1.0.24-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm libusb1-1.0.24-1.fc34.src.rpm libusb1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libusb -> libelous libusb1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS libusb1-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libusb1-tests-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation libusb1-tests-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libusb-example-fxload libusb1-tests-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libusb-example-listdevs libusb1-tests-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libusb-example-xusb libusb1-tests-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libusb-test-libusb libusb1-tests-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libusb-test-stress libusb1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libusb -> libelous libusb1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US macOS -> ma Cos, mac OS, mac-OS 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. -- 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
