https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615381
Michel Alexandre Salim <mic...@michel-slm.name> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(panovotn@redhat.c
| |om)
--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim <mic...@michel-slm.name> ---
A few issues highlighted before that should be easy to fix and then I can
approve this.
Also one suggestion (feel free to use or not as you like): you can use
%autosetup that will also apply the patch for you automatically (you'll still
need to do the `rm -rf lib/bzip2` cleanup)
see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25autosetup
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
%prep should have `rm -rf lib/bzip2` without %{buildroot}
- Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake
devel subpackage should require cmake
- Requires correct, justified where necessary.
no need to manually require zlib:
$ rpm -qp --requires minizip-2.5.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm | grep -e zlib -e libz
libz.so.1()(64bit)
zlib
- ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in minizip
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 124 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1615381-minizip/licensecheck.txt
false positive due to lib/bzip2 not being erased correctly
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
%prep does not delete this correctly
[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
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in minizip-
debuginfo , minizip-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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]: 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: minizip-2.5.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
minizip-devel-2.5.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
minizip-debuginfo-2.5.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
minizip-debugsource-2.5.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
minizip-2.5.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
minizip.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency zlib
minizip.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) contrib -> cont rib, cont-rib,
contribute
minizip.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Minizip
minizip.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/minizip/README.md
minizip-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
minizip.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) contrib -> cont rib, cont-rib,
contribute
minizip.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) zlib -> lib, glib, z lib
minizip.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Minizip
minizip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib
minizip.src:37: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf %{buildroot}/lib/bzip2
minizip.src:37: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib/bzip2
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: minizip-debuginfo-2.5.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
minizip-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/nmoinvaz/minizip <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service
not known>
minizip-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://github.com/nmoinvaz/minizip <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service
not known>
minizip.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency zlib
minizip.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) contrib -> cont rib, cont-rib,
contribute
minizip.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Minizip
minizip.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/nmoinvaz/minizip
<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
minizip.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/minizip/README.md
minizip-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/nmoinvaz/minizip
<urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
minizip-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings.
Requires
--------
minizip-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
minizip-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
minizip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libbsd.so.0()(64bit)
libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.2)(64bit)
libbz2.so.1()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
zlib
minizip-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
libminizip.so.2.5()(64bit)
minizip(x86-64)
pkgconfig(zlib)
zlib-devel
Provides
--------
minizip-debugsource:
minizip-debugsource
minizip-debugsource(x86-64)
minizip-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
minizip-debuginfo
minizip-debuginfo(x86-64)
minizip:
libminizip.so.2.5()(64bit)
minizip
minizip(x86-64)
minizip-devel:
minizip-devel
minizip-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(minizip)
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/nmoinvaz/minizip/archive/2.5.0/minizip-2.5.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
4e832d434f0deaf96bf5188864b09267b21c3445facb01ec6e9b430f2558a60f
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
4e832d434f0deaf96bf5188864b09267b21c3445facb01ec6e9b430f2558a60f
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1615381 -m fedora-28-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-28-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
--
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YGJOFAV43PK42PLNBNGGN7RGOIGGO3SS/
