Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913130
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
You can remove "rm -rf %{buildroot}"
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Can remove %defattr
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Please add "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}" in libgovirt-
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Source files have incorrect FSF address - please fix for next upstream release.
Not a blocker for review
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[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).
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[!]: Dist tag is present.
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Can remove Buildroot: line
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Can remove the %cleann section entirely
[-]: 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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[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: libgovirt-0.0.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
libgovirt-devel-0.0.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
libgovirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) oVirt -> overt
libgovirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US oVirt -> overt
libgovirt.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libgovirt-0.0.3/NEWS
libgovirt.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libgovirt-0.0.3/ChangeLog
libgovirt-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US oVirt -> overt
libgovirt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.
Remove the zero length files from the RPM, or have a new upstream release to
fix content.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint libgovirt libgovirt-devel
libgovirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) oVirt -> overt
libgovirt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US oVirt -> overt
libgovirt.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgovirt.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libsoup-2.4.so.1
libgovirt.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libgovirt.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libxml2.so.2
libgovirt.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libgovirt-0.0.3/NEWS
libgovirt.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libgovirt-0.0.3/ChangeLog
libgovirt-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US oVirt -> overt
libgovirt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
libgovirt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
librest-0.7.so.0()(64bit)
libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit)
libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
libgovirt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
glib2-devel
libgovirt
libgovirt.so.1()(64bit)
pkgconfig
pkgconfig(gio-2.0)
pkgconfig(glib-2.0)
pkgconfig(gobject-2.0)
pkgconfig(rest-0.7)
Provides
--------
libgovirt:
libgovirt
libgovirt(x86-64)
libgovirt.so.1()(64bit)
libgovirt.so.1(GOVIRT_0.0.2)(64bit)
libgovirt-devel:
libgovirt-devel
libgovirt-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(govirt-1.0)
MD5-sum check
-------------
http://people.freedesktop.org/~teuf/govirt/libgovirt-0.0.3.tar.xz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
ea0014b5d3af0fea6aceff6eb67f483399612486b03c4a9a1bd3c20ccca7d361
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ea0014b5d3af0fea6aceff6eb67f483399612486b03c4a9a1bd3c20ccca7d361
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29
Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 913130
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=O6Mxfsqwzg&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
