https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795461 --- Comment #18 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Looks good, a few queries before it can be approved: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - upstream doesn't have the 0.951 release here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/pracrand/files/ The source URL you use is your own fork: https://github.com/jirka-h/PractRand/ So, are we packaging your fork here? - Please remove the license.txt file from docs and mark it using the %license macro License file license.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - You also do not need to copy the docs to the docdir. You can just use: %doc doc/ in %files and that'll copy over the files. - build flags aren't used in the compilation commands. - should the package include a -devel sub-package that includes headers and so on? ===== 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". 156 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1795461-practrand/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. ^ Build flags are set, but not used in the build: + g++ -c src/math.cpp src/non_uniform.cpp src/platform_specifics.cpp src/rand.cpp src/sha2.cpp src/test_batteries.cpp src/tests.cpp src/RNGs/arbee.cpp src/RNGs/chacha.cpp src/RNGs/efiix.cpp src/RNGs/hc256.cpp src/RNGs/isaac.cpp src/RNGs/jsf.cpp src/RNGs/mt19937.cpp src/RNGs/rarns.cpp src/RNGs/salsa.cpp src/RNGs/sfc.cpp src/RNGs/sha2_based_pool.cpp src/RNGs/trivium.cpp src/RNGs/xsm.cpp src/RNGs/other/fibonacci.cpp src/RNGs/other/indirection.cpp src/RNGs/other/mult.cpp src/RNGs/other/simple.cpp src/RNGs/other/transform.cpp -I include -std=c++11 -O3 -g + g++ -o practrand-RNG_test tools/RNG_test.cpp arbee.o chacha.o efiix.o fibonacci.o hc256.o indirection.o isaac.o jsf.o math.o mt19937.o mult.o non_uniform.o platform_specifics.o rand.o rarns.o salsa.o sfc.o sha2.o sha2_based_pool.o simple.o test_batteries.o tests.o transform.o trivium.o xsm.o -I include -I tools -pthread -std=c++11 -O3 -g + g++ -o practrand-RNG_output tools/RNG_output.cpp arbee.o chacha.o efiix.o fibonacci.o hc256.o indirection.o isaac.o jsf.o math.o mt19937.o mult.o non_uniform.o platform_specifics.o rand.o rarns.o salsa.o sfc.o sha2.o sha2_based_pool.o simple.o test_batteries.o tests.o transform.o trivium.o xsm.o -I include -I tools -pthread -std=c++11 -O3 -g + g++ -o practrand-RNG_benchmark tools/RNG_benchmark.cpp arbee.o chacha.o efiix.o fibonacci.o hc256.o indirection.o isaac.o jsf.o math.o mt19937.o mult.o non_uniform.o platform_specifics.o rand.o rarns.o salsa.o sfc.o sha2.o sha2_based_pool.o simple.o test_batteries.o tests.o transform.o trivium.o xsm.o -I include -I tools -pthread -std=c++11 -O3 -g You'll have to use: $CC $CXXFLAGS ... to use the exported variables Any reason to not use the included Makefile? [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. [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package ^ Is this meant to be used as a library too? Should the headers be packaged? [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 256000 bytes in 22 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Scratch build for rawhide looks good: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=65029183 [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]: 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: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. ^ Not tested this out yet. [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. [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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: practrand-0.951-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm practrand-debuginfo-0.951-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm practrand-debugsource-0.951-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm practrand-0.951-1.fc35.src.rpm practrand.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Multithreaded -> Multicolored practrand.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Multithreaded -> Multicolored 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: practrand-debuginfo-0.951-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- practrand.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Multithreaded -> Multicolored 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jirka-h/PractRand/archive/0.951/PractRand-0.951.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0e4e172449d25df1eeb149dae8614f3cd2b03110ffdafc2f659097040df0f558 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0e4e172449d25df1eeb149dae8614f3cd2b03110ffdafc2f659097040df0f558 Requires -------- practrand (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_1.3.8)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) practrand-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): practrand-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- practrand: practrand practrand(x86-64) practrand-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) practrand-debuginfo practrand-debuginfo(x86-64) practrand-debugsource: practrand-debugsource practrand-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1795461 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, R, Python, Java, Ocaml, fonts, Perl, SugarActivity 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
