https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040728 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(fedora@xxxxxxxxxx | |) | --- Comment #19 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hello, Phil. Sorry to make you wait so long. There are a couple of minor issues with the package, but overall it looks good. 1) app/tools/halibut/LICENCE should not be installed The License: field applies only to the resulting binary RPM. The bundled halibut is used only during the build process, but no halibut code is included in the xtrkcad executable. Hence, the halibut license file doesn't need to be installed. 2) Arch-ed rpms have a total of 6430720 bytes in /usr/share Consider moving the contents of /usr/share/xtrkcad to a subpackage, like xtrkcad-data. The main package should then have a Requires: on it. 3) Missing BuildRequires on "cmake(cmocka)" The program's test suite is based on cmocka, which is not BuildRequired. Building tests also needs to be enabled by using "-DXTRKCAD_TESTING=ON". Because of this, tests aren't built and hence nothing is really tested during %check. I've tried building the test suite and got linking errors when doing so, so it's possible that CMakeLists need to be patched in order to make it all work. (Alternatively, can just omit the tests and remove the check section entirely. If you do so, consider adding a short comment saying that the test suite is broken.) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Note: file app/tools/halibut/LICENCE is installed, but halibut is used only during the build process and no halibut code is included in the resulting binary package. [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 6430720 bytes in /usr/share [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. %check is present, but no tests are being found. The test suite uses cmocka, which is not listed in BuildRequires. ===== 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. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: bundled code is present in the source tarball, but patched out and not used during build. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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). [x]: 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. Note: successful scratch build in koji for Rawhide can be found at: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84171921 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. %check is present, but no tests are being found. The test suite uses cmocka, which is not listed in BuildRequires. [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 6430720 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: xtrkcad-5.2.2-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm xtrkcad-doc-5.2.2-1.fc37.noarch.rpm xtrkcad-debuginfo-5.2.2-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm xtrkcad-debugsource-5.2.2-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm xtrkcad-5.2.2-1.fc37.src.rpm xtrkcad.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US benchwork -> bench work, bench-work, workbench xtrkcad.x86_64: W: no-documentation xtrkcad.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/xtrkcad/COPYING xtrkcad.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/xtrkcad/COPYING xtrkcad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xtrkcad xtrkcad-doc.noarch: W: no-documentation xtrkcad-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/xtrkcad/html/GNUGPLicense.html xtrkcad.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US benchwork -> bench work, bench-work, workbench 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: xtrkcad-debuginfo-5.2.2-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://sourceforge.net/projects/xtrkcad-fork/files/XTrackCad/Version 5.2.2/xtrkcad-source-5.2.2GA.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a5b2caa29b34504338a7f1fd2412e8590b8add9be410611d09693a721b798524 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a5b2caa29b34504338a7f1fd2412e8590b8add9be410611d09693a721b798524 Requires -------- xtrkcad (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libcjson.so.1()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libzip.so.5()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) xdg-utils xtrkcad-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): xtrkcad-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): xtrkcad-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- xtrkcad: application() application(xtrkcad.desktop) xtrkcad xtrkcad(x86-64) xtrkcad-doc: xtrkcad-doc xtrkcad-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) xtrkcad-debuginfo xtrkcad-debuginfo(x86-64) xtrkcad-debugsource: xtrkcad-debugsource xtrkcad-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2040728 --cache Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, Python, R, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Haskell 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040728 _______________________________________________ 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
