https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804529
Jerry James <loganje...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. |
|com) |
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James <loganje...@gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
=======
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- Remove "rm -rf %{buildroot} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" at the start of %install. See
the third bullet point here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
- There is an unused direct library dependency:
$ ldd -u /usr/lib64/security/pam_cryptsetup.so
Unused direct dependencies:
/lib64/libcryptsetup.so.12
This is due to libtool reordering -Wl,--as-needed *after* the libraries to be
linked. I usually insert this snippet into my spec files, between %configure
and %make_build, to address that issue. I'm offering this as a suggestion;
take it or leave it as you wish.
# Workaround libtool reordering -Wl,--as-needed after all the libraries.
sed -i 's|CC="\(.*g..\)"|CC="\1 -Wl,--as-needed"|' libtool
- Another suggestion: it is possible to give a valid URL for Source0. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Commit_Revision. In this
case, the URL would be something like this (you would have to add a
definition for %commit):
Source0: %{url}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{snapshot_rev}.tar.gz
The benefit is that you can use spectool to download future versions of the
tarball.
===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)",
"Apache License (v2.0)". 18 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[!]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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).
[?]: 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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not 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.
[!]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: pam-cryptsetup-0.1-0.2.20190823.7b42892.fc33.x86_64.rpm
pam-cryptsetup-debuginfo-0.1-0.2.20190823.7b42892.fc33.x86_64.rpm
pam-cryptsetup-debugsource-0.1-0.2.20190823.7b42892.fc33.x86_64.rpm
pam-cryptsetup-0.1-0.2.20190823.7b42892.fc33.src.rpm
pam-cryptsetup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypted ->
encrypted
pam-cryptsetup.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypted ->
encrypted
pam-cryptsetup.src: W: invalid-url Source0: pam-cryptsetup-0.1-7b42892.tar.xz
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: pam-cryptsetup-debuginfo-0.1-0.2.20190823.7b42892.fc33.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
pam-cryptsetup.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decrypted ->
encrypted
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
pam-cryptsetup: /usr/lib64/security/pam_cryptsetup.so
Requires
--------
pam-cryptsetup (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcryptsetup.so.12()(64bit)
libcryptsetup.so.12(CRYPTSETUP_2.0)(64bit)
libdevmapper.so.1.02()(64bit)
libdevmapper.so.1.02(Base)(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpam.so.0()(64bit)
libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit)
libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_EXTENSION_1.0)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
pam-cryptsetup-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
pam-cryptsetup-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
pam-cryptsetup:
pam-cryptsetup
pam-cryptsetup(x86-64)
pam-cryptsetup-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
pam-cryptsetup-debuginfo
pam-cryptsetup-debuginfo(x86-64)
pam-cryptsetup-debugsource:
pam-cryptsetup-debugsource
pam-cryptsetup-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1804529 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, R, Perl, Ruby, fonts,
Python, Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
