https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927462
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.an...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |sanjay.an...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |sanjay.an...@gmail.com
Alias| |roscpp_core
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.an...@gmail.com> ---
[+] OK
[-] NA
[?] Issue
** Mandatory review guidelines: **
[?] rpmlint output:
[asinha@localhost SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/roscpp_core.spec
./roscpp_core-0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc19.src.rpm
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm
roscpp_core.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roscpp -> Roscoe
roscpp_core.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roscpp -> Roscoe
roscpp_core.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roscpp -> Roscoe
roscpp_core.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libroscpp_serialization.so
libroscpp_serialization.so
roscpp_core.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libcpp_common.so
libcpp_common.so
roscpp_core.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/librostime.so librostime.so
roscpp_core.x86_64: W: no-documentation
roscpp_core-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) roscpp -> Roscoe
roscpp_core-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roscpp ->
Roscoe
roscpp_core-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) roscpp -> Roscoe
roscpp_core-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roscpp ->
Roscoe
5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 8 warnings.
[asinha@localhost SRPMS]$
^^ The invalid soname errors need to be corrected. Generally, the versioned
soname should be present in the package, and the unversioned soname in the
devel package as a symlink of the versioned soname. At the present time, the
devel package here doesn't even have a shared object in it to link against.
[+] License is acceptable (...)
[+] License field in spec is correct
[+] License files included in package %docs if included in source package
[+] License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed
[+] Spec written in American English
[+] Spec is legible
[+] Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues
[asinha@localhost SPECS]$ review-md5check.sh roscpp_core.spec
mkdir: cannot create directory ‘/tmp/review’: File exists
Getting
https://github.com/ros/roscpp_core/archive/d0b5ce1d8f42050a5674875b866a7dda6383a75b/roscpp_core-0.2.6-d0b5ce1.tar.gz
to /tmp/review/roscpp_core-0.2.6-d0b5ce1.tar.gz % Total % Received % Xferd
Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
100 157 100 157 0 0 119 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 119
0 0 0 46845 0 0 14953 0 --:--:-- 0:00:03 --:--:-- 44444
58af78843ead517ef8be46df06f90c0b /tmp/review/roscpp_core-0.2.6-d0b5ce1.tar.gz
58af78843ead517ef8be46df06f90c0b
/home/asinha/rpmbuild/SOURCES/roscpp_core-0.2.6-d0b5ce1.tar.gz
removed ‘/tmp/review/roscpp_core-0.2.6-d0b5ce1.tar.gz’
removed directory: ‘/tmp/review’
[asinha@localhost SPECS]$
[+] Build succeeds on at least one primary arch
[+] Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed
[+] BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary
[-] Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/*
[?] %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files
^
Please use the correct scriptlets
[+] No bundled libs
[-] Relocatability is justified
[+] Package owns all directories it creates
[-] Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own
[+] No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files
[+] File permissions are sane
[+] Package contains permissible code or content
[-] Large docs go in -doc subpackage
[+] %doc files not required at runtime
[-] Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides
[+] Development files go in -devel package
[+] -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa
[+] No .la files
[-] GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install
[-] File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification
[+] File names are valid UTF-8
** Optional review guidelines: **
[-] Query upstream about including license files
[-] Translations of description, summary
[+] Builds in mock
[+] Builds on all arches
[-] Functions as described (e.g. no crashes)
[?] Scriptlets are sane
^
Missing ldconfig scriptlets
[+] Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible
[+] .pc file subpackage placement is sensible
[+] No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin
[-] Include man pages if available
Naming guidelines:
[+] Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+
[+] Package names are sane
[+] No naming conflicts
[+] Spec file name matches base package name
[+] Version is sane
[+] Version does not contain ~
[+] Release is sane
[+] %dist tag
[-] Case used only when necessary
[-] Renaming handled correctly
Packaging guidelines:
[+] Useful without external bits
[+] No kmods
[-] Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep
[+] Sources contain only redistributable code or content
[+] Spec format is sane
[+] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target
[+] No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17
[-] Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run
[+] Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17
[+] No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local
[+] Changelog in prescribed format
[+] No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags
[+] Summary does not end in a period
[-] Correct BuildRoot tag on < EL6
[-] Correct %clean section on < EL6
[+] Requires correct, justified where necessary
[+] Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly
[+] All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc
[+] Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x)
[+] Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc
[+] Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise
[-] PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs
[+] Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified
[-] Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6
[+] No static executables
[+] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs
[-] Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config
[+] No config files under /usr
[+] Third party package manager configs acceptable, in %_docdir
[+] .desktop files are sane
[+] Spec uses macros consistently
[+] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate
[-] Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed
[-] %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work
[+] Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time
[+] Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir
[+] No software collections (scl)
[-] Macro files named /etc/rpm/macros.%name
[-] Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs
[+] %global, not %define
[-] Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it
[-] Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel
[+] File ops preserve timestamps
[+] Parallel make
[+] No Requires(pre,post) notation
[-] User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups)
[-] Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www
[-] Conflicts are justified
[+] One project per package
[+] No bundled fonts
[+] Patches have appropriate commentary
[-] Available test suites executed in %check
[-] tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15
[asinha@localhost result]$ review-req-check
== roscpp_core-0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20.src.rpm ==
Provides:
Requires:
cmake
gtest
boost-devel
python-sphinx
ros-catkin-devel
== roscpp_core-0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ==
Provides:
libcpp_common.so()(64bit)
libroscpp_serialization.so()(64bit)
librostime.so()(64bit)
roscpp_core = 0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20
roscpp_core(x86-64) = 0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20
Requires:
libboost_date_time-mt.so.1.53.0()(64bit)
libboost_system-mt.so.1.53.0()(64bit)
libboost_thread-mt.so.1.53.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
librt.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.15)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
== roscpp_core-debuginfo-0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ==
Provides:
roscpp_core-debuginfo = 0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20
roscpp_core-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20
Requires:
== roscpp_core-devel-0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ==
Provides:
pkgconfig(cpp_common) = 0.2.6
pkgconfig(roscpp_serialization) = 0.2.6
pkgconfig(roscpp_traits) = 0.2.6
pkgconfig(rostime) = 0.2.6
roscpp_core-devel = 0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20
roscpp_core-devel(x86-64) = 0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20
Requires:
/usr/bin/pkg-config
roscpp_core(x86-64) = 0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20
[asinha@localhost result]$
A few issues. The blocker is the missing sonames in the devel subpackage.
Rich, will this package own %{_includedir}/ros or will one of the other
packages, such as ros-release own it? Other ros stacks also might put stuff in
there, right?
Additionally, you can break the docs into a separate sub package if you wish.
Not a blocker.
--
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=EuQXS2u6NN&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
