https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996 --- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The docs/assets/ directory contains precompiled CSS and JavaScript, which could not be packaged as-is: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Web_Assets/#_css https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/JavaScript/#_compilationminification This is OK since you are not packaging the HTML documentation, but it would be best if you remove the directory in %prep. (I think this is more than adequate reason NOT to package the documentation.) - Similarly, you should remove the following in %prep: - javascript/ contains precompiled JavaScript - maya/ contains precompiled Windows and MacOS binaries (inside .tar.gz archives) - Add to %files: %license LICENSE AUTHORS - Please remove the following, since it is not used and is therefore confusing: # draco git %global commit0 4cba1acdd718b700bb33945c0258283689d4eac7 %global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7}) %global gver git%{shortcommit0} - It would be good to remove these commented-out lines too: #%%global debug_package %%{nil} #define _legacy_common_support 1 - This is the default since Fedora 23, so the explicit macro can be removed: %global _hardened_build 1 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages - What is this, and why is it necessary? If it can’t be removed, can you write a spec file comment justifying why it is needed? %global _disable_ld_no_undefined %nil - The -devel package should have a fully versioned dependency on the base package. Instead of Requires: draco >= %{version}-%{release} use Requires: draco%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - The use of the %{name} macro is inconsistent; this is not against the guidelines, but consider standardizing on either using %{name} or writing out “draco”. Personally, I’ve come to favor less use of trivial macros like this, but this is mostly a subjective question. - Change %{_datadir}/cmake/ to %{_datadir}/cmake/%{name}/ - Please check if this is doing anything useful; I suspect it is not, since Fedora is already setting LTO flags in CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS. -DCMAKE_INTERPROCEDURAL_OPTIMIZATION=ON - Please remove this, since it is already in the expansion of the %cmake macro (and uses %{_prefix} instead of hard-coded /usr): -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr \ - You have this twice; please remove one of them. -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr \ - Consider including README.md as %doc. - Man pages are always desired (but not required): draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder-1.5.5 draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder-1.5.5 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages ===== 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* The Unlicense". 495 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2160996-draco/licensecheck.txt Licenses other than Apache-2.0 come from docs/assets/, which will not be packaged. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/cmake(cmake- filesystem, websocketpp-devel, python3-uranium, libmodman-devel, kim- api-devel, libwbxml-devel, glm-devel, bash-completion) [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Directories in third_party/ are empty. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Precompiled JavaScript, CSS, and binaries are OK for sources but should be removed in %prep to ensure and demonstrate that they are not included in the binary RPMs. [-]: 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). -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr \ [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. ExclusiveArch is present [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in draco- devel [?]: Package functions as described. Can the test suite be executed? [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. [!]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: draco-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm draco-devel-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm draco-debuginfo-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm draco-debugsource-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm draco-1.5.5-1.fc38.src.rpm =========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpv4dbwb1w')] checks: 31, packages: 5 draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder-1.5.5 draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder-1.5.5 draco.x86_64: W: no-documentation draco-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ============================================================================ 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s ============================================================================ Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: draco-debuginfo-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm =========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpuf2qpu3i')] checks: 31, packages: 1 ============================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ============================================================================ Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 4 draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_decoder-1.5.5 draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder draco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary draco_encoder-1.5.5 draco-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation draco.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/draco/archive/1.5.5/draco-1.5.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6b7994150bbc513abcdbe22ad778d6b2df10fc8cdc7035e916985b2a209ab826 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6b7994150bbc513abcdbe22ad778d6b2df10fc8cdc7035e916985b2a209ab826 Requires -------- draco (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdraco.so.7()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) draco-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config cmake-filesystem draco libdraco.so.7()(64bit) draco-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): draco-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- draco: draco draco(x86-64) libdraco.so.7()(64bit) draco-devel: cmake(draco) draco-devel draco-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(draco) draco-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) draco-debuginfo draco-debuginfo(x86-64) libdraco.so.7.0.0-1.5.5-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit) draco-debugsource: draco-debugsource draco-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2160996 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Python, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, Java, R, 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2160996 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
