[Bug 2095717] Review Request: sfsexp - Small Fast S-Expression Library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095717

Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Unofficial review:


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "Unknown or
     generated", "[generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License
     Retention) [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
     later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later",
     "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated
     file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited
     License (with License Retention) GNU General Public License, Version
     2", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)". 29 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/sfsexp/2095717-sfsexp/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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[?]: 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 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).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sfsexp-
     devel
[?]: 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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %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]: 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 debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/mjsottile/sfsexp/releases/download/v1.4.0/sfsexp-1.4.0.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
66b3d3a83b781613e04372fa0185518ed00fe1435de116be88cf0fdd3e4c0286
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
66b3d3a83b781613e04372fa0185518ed00fe1435de116be88cf0fdd3e4c0286


Requires
--------
sfsexp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

sfsexp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libsexp.so.1()(64bit)
    sfsexp(x86-64)

sfsexp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

sfsexp-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
sfsexp:
    libsexp.so.1()(64bit)
    sfsexp
    sfsexp(x86-64)

sfsexp-devel:
    pkgconfig(sfsexp)
    sfsexp-devel
    sfsexp-devel(x86-64)

sfsexp-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libsexp.so.1.0.0-1.4.0-1.fc37.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    sfsexp-debuginfo
    sfsexp-debuginfo(x86-64)

sfsexp-debugsource:
    sfsexp-debugsource
    sfsexp-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2095717
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, Ocaml, Java, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python,
fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Minor comments:
1) May be helpful to use two line breaks consistently in the commands section
of the spec file and one line break elsewhere.
2) Enable other architectures on the copr build in addtion to x86_64, it would
be good to have AArch64 and ARM-hfp as described at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#Primary_Architectures and linked
from
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_support
3) Should Python and Ruby bindings be provided?


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095717
_______________________________________________
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux