https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988952 Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file license.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - license file is not installed using %license, but marked as %doc. use just: %license license.txt %doc readme.txt # ^^ installs from sources directory to correct paths # rm license.txt in %{_datadir}/doc/ after install if needed - /usr/include/SFML is shared with SFML-devel. It is unusual to share header directories if it does not depend on SFML-devel. I think it might be confusing. No pkg-config or cmake config file is provided to easy configuration. I guess okay if SFML-devel and CSFML-devel do not conflict and they are related. Depends on how is the usage of library documented. - /usr/share/CSFML/doc is wrong, /usr/share/doc/CSFML should be used instead. SFML uses it the same wrong way, but should be corrected too. To be fixed in cmake/Config.cmake CMake module GNUInstallDirs should be considered on Linux: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.0/module/GNUInstallDirs.html - I would recommend adding html API docs to separate -doc subpackage with BuildArch: noarch. It is not so small and not always required for building. Recommends: %{name}-doc might be in devel package. Also, add the html directory also: %{_datadir}/%{name}/doc/html/* -> %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/html ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng license". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/1988952-CSFML/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/CSFML, /usr/share/CSFML/doc, /usr/share/CSFML/doc/html [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/CSFML/doc/html, /usr/share/CSFML/doc, /usr/share/CSFML [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/SFML(SFML- devel), /usr/include/SFML/Audio(SFML-devel), /usr/include/SFML/Graphics(SFML-devel), /usr/include/SFML/Network(SFML-devel), /usr/include/SFML/System(SFML- devel), /usr/include/SFML/Window(SFML-devel) [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. [!]: 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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines - /usr/share/CSFML/doc instead of /usr/share/doc/CSFML [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: No rpmlint messages. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1945600 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: CSFML-2.5.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm CSFML-devel-2.5.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm CSFML-debuginfo-2.5.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm CSFML-debugsource-2.5.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm CSFML-2.5.1-1.fc35.src.rpm 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: CSFML-debuginfo-2.5.1-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://www.sfml-dev.org/files/CSFML-2.5.1-sources.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5453f04ae782a22697ebeb2694a0f7a56bf172c1406ca2b9134143198705ddc7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5453f04ae782a22697ebeb2694a0f7a56bf172c1406ca2b9134143198705ddc7 Requires -------- CSFML (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libsfml-audio.so.2.5()(64bit) libsfml-graphics.so.2.5()(64bit) libsfml-network.so.2.5()(64bit) libsfml-system.so.2.5()(64bit) libsfml-window.so.2.5()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) CSFML-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): CSFML(x86-64) libcsfml-audio.so.2.5()(64bit) libcsfml-graphics.so.2.5()(64bit) libcsfml-network.so.2.5()(64bit) libcsfml-system.so.2.5()(64bit) libcsfml-window.so.2.5()(64bit) CSFML-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): CSFML-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- CSFML: CSFML CSFML(x86-64) libcsfml-audio.so.2.5()(64bit) libcsfml-graphics.so.2.5()(64bit) libcsfml-network.so.2.5()(64bit) libcsfml-system.so.2.5()(64bit) libcsfml-window.so.2.5()(64bit) CSFML-devel: CSFML-devel CSFML-devel(x86-64) CSFML-debuginfo: CSFML-debuginfo CSFML-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) libcsfml-audio.so.2.5.1-2.5.1-1.fc35.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libcsfml-graphics.so.2.5.1-2.5.1-1.fc35.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libcsfml-network.so.2.5.1-2.5.1-1.fc35.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libcsfml-system.so.2.5.1-2.5.1-1.fc35.x86_64.debug()(64bit) libcsfml-window.so.2.5.1-2.5.1-1.fc35.x86_64.debug()(64bit) CSFML-debugsource: CSFML-debugsource CSFML-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1988952 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, R, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, Java, fonts, PHP 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
