https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226013
Josh Boyer <jwbo...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Josh Boyer <jwbo...@redhat.com> ---
This looks good to me. I'm assuming you'll fixup the Sources file as you've
already noted. A few minor comments below. Approved.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /boot/efi/EFI, /boot/efi
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /boot/efi/EFI,
/boot/efi/EFI/fedora, /boot/efi
This is fine
[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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
I don't really care about this, but %clean can be dropped.
[-]: 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
fwupdate-libs , fwupdate-devel
[-]: Package functions as described.
This is, at the moment, hard for me to test as it requires UEFI firmware that
actually supports this.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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: fwupdate-0.3-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
fwupdate-libs-0.3-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
fwupdate-devel-0.3-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
fwupdate-0.3-1.fc22.src.rpm
fwupdate-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
fwupdate-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libfwup -> Librium
fwupdate-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfwup ->
Librium
fwupdate-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: fwupdate-debuginfo-0.3-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
fwupdate-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libfwup -> Librium
fwupdate-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfwup ->
Librium
LOL go home rpmlint.
fwupdate-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
fwupdate-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libfwup.so.0.3 /lib64/libdl.so.2
fwupdate-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Requires
--------
fwupdate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
fwupdate-libs
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libefiboot.so.0()(64bit)
libefivar.so.0()(64bit)
libfwup.so.0.3()(64bit)
libpopt.so.0()(64bit)
libpopt.so.0(LIBPOPT_0)(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
fwupdate-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
efivar-devel
fwupdate-libs
libfwup.so.0.3()(64bit)
pkgconfig(efivar)
fwupdate-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libefiboot.so.0()(64bit)
libefivar.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
fwupdate:
fwupdate
fwupdate(x86-64)
fwupdate-devel:
fwupdate-devel
fwupdate-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(fwup)
fwupdate-libs:
fwupdate-libs
fwupdate-libs(x86-64)
libfwup.so.0.3()(64bit)
Source checksums
----------------
https://pjones.fedorapeople.org/fwupdate-0.3.tar.bz2 :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
f2ec7763eb23e83e23a271660945d1d7dddefe43726328ce29da1ad808947968
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
f2ec7763eb23e83e23a271660945d1d7dddefe43726328ce29da1ad808947968
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
--
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
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
