https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955394 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(zheng.ma@xxxxxxxx | |m) --- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks. This is a high-quality package with just a couple of changes needed before I can approve it. Thanks for taking the time to include this software in the official repositories. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - Fedora build flags are not honored. For an autotools configure script, the best choice would be to replace ./configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --enable-symbol with %configure --enable-symbol However, since you have a custom configure script that uses different options, and since it does not pick up environment variables, your best bet is probably to set the necessary variables this way: %set_build_flags ./configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --enable-symbol and then adjust your configure script to respect the CFLAGS/LDFLAGS from the environment. - You should provide all of the installation directories explicitly even though the defaults seem to be OK on x86_64. ./configure \ --bindir=%{_bindir} \ --sharedlib-dir=%{_libdir} \ --includedir=%{_includedir} \ --mandir=%{_mandir} \ --prefix=%{_prefix} \ --enable-symbol - There are upstream tests, but no %check section. If there are any that can be run as an unprivileged user without special hardware, please add a %check section and run them. Otherwise, please add a brief comment explaining why this is not possible. ===== Notes (no change is required for approval) ===== - Did you want to install the contents of the config_file/ directory? You could do something like this if you did. %package examples Summary: Sample configuration files for the libqatzip package BuildArch: noarch License: BSD or GPLv2 %description examples This package contains sample configuration files for the libqatzip package. %files examples %license LICENSE config_file/LICENSE.GPL %doc config_file/*/ ===== 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: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License GNU General Public License, Version 2". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1955394-qatzip/licensecheck.txt Files licensed (BSD or GPLv2) are not currently installed, so “License: BSD” is correct. If this changes, I suggest installing the (BSD or GPLv2) files in a subpackage. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Should use RPM macros to provide all installation directories to configure script. [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. Package is ExclusiveArch and bugzillas will be filed. [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). [?]: 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. Package is ExclusiveArch [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Can any tests be run as an unprivileged user? [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: qatzip-1.0.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm qatzip-devel-1.0.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm qatzip-debuginfo-1.0.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm qatzip-debugsource-1.0.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm qatzip-1.0.4-1.fc35.src.rpm qatzip.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C QATzip qatzip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip, g zip qatzip-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libqatzip -> libation qatzip.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C QATzip qatzip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip, g zip qatzip.src:43: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: qatzip-debuginfo-1.0.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- qatzip-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libqatzip -> libation qatzip.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C QATzip qatzip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip, g zip 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/intel/QATzip/archive/v1.0.4/qatzip-1.0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f6272d9b4b214f9c8621d293a72ca5b3a04d9a4c26469f30dccb34ece6fe3531 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f6272d9b4b214f9c8621d293a72ca5b3a04d9a4c26469f30dccb34ece6fe3531 Requires -------- qatzip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libqat.so.0()(64bit) libusdm.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.2)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) qatzip-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): qatzip(x86-64) qatzip-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): qatzip-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- qatzip: libqatzip.so.1()(64bit) qatzip qatzip(x86-64) qatzip-devel: qatzip-devel qatzip-devel(x86-64) qatzip-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libqatzip.so.1.0.4-1.0.4-1.fc35.x86_64.debug()(64bit) qatzip-debuginfo qatzip-debuginfo(x86-64) qatzip-debugsource: qatzip-debugsource qatzip-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1955394 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ruby, fonts, R, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl 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
