https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1906980 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #20 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I found only one issue, regarding the placement of the static library. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: highway-doc : /usr/share/doc/highway-doc/examples/skeleton-inl.h highway-doc : /usr/share/doc/highway-doc/examples/skeleton.h highway-doc : /usr/share/doc/highway-doc/examples/skeleton_shared.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages This is a false positive, as these are part of an example project. No change required. - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: highway-libs. Illegal package name: highway- libs. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries From the guidelines: > When a package only provides static libraries you MAY place all the > static library files in the *-devel subpackage. When doing this you also > MUST have a virtual Provide for the *-static package You have correctly added the virtual Provide, but it seems the guidelines require you to put the static library and virtual Provide in the -devel subpackage and drop the now-empty -libs subpackage. - After the package is approved, you will need to file Bugzilla bugs blocking the tracker bugs for unsupported primary architectures, per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures. ===== 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages Builds in Koji. [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: "Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/review-highway/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. [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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. ExclusiveArch present and correctly justified. File Bugzilla bugs blocking tracker bugs for unsupported primary architectures after the package is approved (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures). [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as otherwise noted) [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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 highway- libs , highway-devel [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. 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. ExclusiveArch present and properly documented. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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 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: highway-libs-0.11.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm highway-devel-0.11.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm highway-doc-0.11.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm highway-0.11.1-1.fc35.src.rpm highway-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation highway-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libhwy.a highway-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- highway-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation highway-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation highway-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libhwy.a 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/highway/archive/0.11.1/highway-0.11.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4c4bb9501c02b27a0944afde8923aaab554384690d37e5b2a7f97553426ea641 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4c4bb9501c02b27a0944afde8923aaab554384690d37e5b2a7f97553426ea641 Requires -------- highway-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): highway-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config highway-libs(x86-64) pkgconfig(gtest) highway-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- highway-libs: highway-libs highway-libs(x86-64) highway-static highway-devel: highway-devel highway-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libhwy) pkgconfig(libhwy-test) highway-doc: highway-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n highway -p Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, Ruby, R, Python, Haskell, fonts 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
