Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948000
Michael Scherer <m...@zarb.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |m...@zarb.org
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer <m...@zarb.org> ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
- Package own directory that belong to gnuradio (
/usr/share/gnuradio/grc/blocks )
- %{_isa} is missing in Requires from -devel
- why are some includes removed ( ie, the one about swig ) ?
- I would add the 2 examples application in %doc ( in apps/ ), what do you
think about it ?
- there is also some doxygen documentation, shouldn't it be shipped ?
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/948000-gr-osmosdr/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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/gnuradio/grc/blocks(gnuradio)
[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.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gr-osmosdr-
devel
[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.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[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]: 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[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: gr-osmosdr-0.0.1-1.20130403gite85c68d9.fc18.x86_64.rpm
gr-osmosdr-devel-0.0.1-1.20130403gite85c68d9.fc18.x86_64.rpm
gr-osmosdr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rtl -> rt, rte, rel
gr-osmosdr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sdr -> sir, Sadr
gr-osmosdr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt
gr-osmosdr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint gr-osmosdr gr-osmosdr-devel
gr-osmosdr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rtl -> rt, rte, rel
gr-osmosdr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sdr -> sir, Sadr
gr-osmosdr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt
gr-osmosdr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
gr-osmosdr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libboost_system-mt.so.1.50.0()(64bit)
libboost_thread-mt.so.1.50.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit)
libgnuradio-core-3.6.4.so.0.0.0()(64bit)
libgnuradio-fcd-3.6.4.so.0.0.0()(64bit)
libgnuradio-osmosdr-0.0.1git.so.0.0.0()(64bit)
libgruel-3.6.4.so.0.0.0()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit)
librtlsdr.so.0()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
python(abi)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
gr-osmosdr-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
gr-osmosdr
libgnuradio-osmosdr-0.0.1git.so.0.0.0()(64bit)
pkgconfig(gnuradio-core)
Provides
--------
gr-osmosdr:
gr-osmosdr
gr-osmosdr(x86-64)
libgnuradio-osmosdr-0.0.1git.so.0.0.0()(64bit)
gr-osmosdr-devel:
gr-osmosdr-devel
gr-osmosdr-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(gnuradio-osmosdr)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
gr-osmosdr: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/osmosdr/_osmosdr_swig.so
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (cf29f98) last change: 2013-02-08
Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 948000
--
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=ix01NE7ffW&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
