https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1979403 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: wdsp : /usr/include/wdsp.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages You accidentally listed %{_includedir}/wdsp.h twice. Please remove it from the base package’s %files and leave it in the -devel package’s %files only. - The Fedora compiler flags are respected, in that they are added to the command line and are after those from the project, so they should prevail. It would probably be better to stop the build system from adding -O3 altogether, though. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags. Something like this should work (passing the default OPTIONS from the Makefile with -O3 removed): %make_build OPTIONS='-g -fPIC -D _GNU_SOURCE' \ CFLAGS="%{build_cflags}" \ LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags}" \ GTK_INCLUDE=GTK - I see there is a comment in the spec file that you encouraged upstream to start versioning the shared library. Was this in a public venue that you can link to? If so, could you add the link? If not, could you say so in the comment (e.g. “via private email”)? - Since the Makefile uses pkg-config/pkgconf to find GTK, this BuildRequires: gtk3-devel would be better written as: BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0) See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PkgConfigBuildRequires/. - Please add a comment to the spec file where the %check section would be, stating that there are no tests. - For downstream so-versioning, you should start with “0.1” or some other “0.n” to help avoid future conflicts in case upstream starts versioning with “0”. Currently, you are using “0”. Please see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning for details. ===== 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]: 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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1979403-wdsp/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. -O3 is overridden by the distro flag -O2, but it would be better if it were not added at all [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 The header wdsp.h is listed twice. [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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as mentioned) [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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in wdsp- devel (Yes, there is.) [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Please add a comment that there are no tests. [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]: 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: wdsp-0-0.1.20210705gitc55342c5.fc35.aarch64.rpm wdsp-devel-0-0.1.20210705gitc55342c5.fc35.aarch64.rpm wdsp-debuginfo-0-0.1.20210705gitc55342c5.fc35.aarch64.rpm wdsp-debugsource-0-0.1.20210705gitc55342c5.fc35.aarch64.rpm wdsp-0-0.1.20210705gitc55342c5.fc35.src.rpm wdsp.aarch64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/wdsp.h wdsp-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: wdsp-debuginfo-0-0.1.20210705gitc55342c5.fc35.aarch64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/g0orx/wdsp/archive/c55342c5b15354a9ac2b8b16eb8748d5518f723c/wdsp-20210705gitc55342c5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d81e9edf4065fba6d3e613f2efdf3804a0f1233add78744da1865691e78db753 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d81e9edf4065fba6d3e613f2efdf3804a0f1233add78744da1865691e78db753 Requires -------- wdsp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfftw3.so.3()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wdsp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libwdsp.so.0()(64bit) wdsp(aarch-64) wdsp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): wdsp-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- wdsp: libwdsp.so.0()(64bit) wdsp wdsp(aarch-64) wdsp-devel: wdsp-devel wdsp-devel(aarch-64) wdsp-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libwdsp.so.0.0.0-0-0.1.20210705gitc55342c5.fc35.aarch64.debug()(64bit) wdsp-debuginfo wdsp-debuginfo(aarch-64) wdsp-debugsource: wdsp-debugsource wdsp-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1979403 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, R, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, PHP, Haskell, fonts, 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
