https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107422
Florian "der-flo" Lehner <d...@der-flo.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |d...@der-flo.net
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |d...@der-flo.net
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Florian "der-flo" Lehner <d...@der-flo.net> ---
Issues
======
[ ]: Please add some words to the subpackages instead of using just %{summary}
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL
(unversioned/unknown version) GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated".
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
---> please add a comment where the breakdown is
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/octovis,
/usr/lib64/cmake
---> please add something like "mkdir -p {_bindir}/octovis" and
"mkdir -p %{_datadir}/octovis" to the %install-section
[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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
---> Please replace /sbin with %{_sbindir}
[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.
[x]: 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 40960 bytes in 3 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> There are some issues.
Please fix those issues and I'll take another review.
[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 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]: 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
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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 octomap-doc
, octomap-octovis , octomap-octovis-devel , dynamic-edt-3d , dynamic-edt-
3d-devel
---> why isn't octomap-octovis needed for octovis-devel?
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
---> please add a comment
[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7064329
[x]: %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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[!]: SourceX is a working URL.
---> Please replace Source0 with:
Source0:
https://github.com/OctoMap/octomap/releases/tag/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Replace "%setup -q -n %{name}-%{commit}" with just "%setup"
Using the new Source0 you don't need -n in %setup
And remove these two:
%global shortcommit
%global commit
[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: octomap-1.6.6-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
octomap-devel-1.6.6-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
octomap-doc-1.6.6-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
octomap-octovis-1.6.6-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
octomap-octovis-devel-1.6.6-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
dynamic-edt-3d-1.6.6-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
dynamic-edt-3d-devel-1.6.6-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
octomap-1.6.6-1.fc21.src.rpm
octomap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US octree -> trochee
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bt2vrml
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary octovis
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binvox2bt
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary log2graph
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary convert_octree
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary graph2tree
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edit_octree
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compare_octrees
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary eval_octree_accuracy
octomap-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
octomap-octovis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libQGLViewer ->
interviewer
octomap-octovis.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary octovis
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/octovis/SelectionBox.h
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/octovis/OcTreeRecord.h
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/octovis/PointcloudDrawer.h
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/octovis/OcTreeDrawer.h
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/octovis/SceneObject.h
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/octovis/TrajectoryDrawer.h
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/octovis/ColorOcTreeDrawer.h
dynamic-edt-3d.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US updatable ->
uneatable
dynamic-edt-3d-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
octomap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US octree -> trochee
8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 17 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint dynamic-edt-3d octomap-doc octomap-octovis-devel octomap oc
tomap-octovis octomap-devel dynamic-edt-3d-devel
dynamic-edt-3d.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US updatable ->
uneatable
dynamic-edt-3d.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libdynamicedt3d.so.1.6.6 /lib64/liboctomap.so.1.6
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/octovis/SelectionBox.h
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/octovis/OcTreeRecord.h
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/octovis/PointcloudDrawer.h
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/octovis/OcTreeDrawer.h
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/octovis/SceneObject.h
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/octovis/TrajectoryDrawer.h
octomap-octovis-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/octovis/ColorOcTreeDrawer.h
octomap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US octree -> trochee
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bt2vrml
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary octovis
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binvox2bt
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary log2graph
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary convert_octree
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary graph2tree
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edit_octree
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compare_octrees
octomap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary eval_octree_accuracy
octomap-octovis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libQGLViewer ->
interviewer
octomap-octovis.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary octovis
octomap-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
dynamic-edt-3d-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 17 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
dynamic-edt-3d (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
liboctomap.so.1.6()(64bit)
liboctomath.so.1.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
octomap-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
octomap-octovis-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
octomap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libGL.so.1()(64bit)
libGLU.so.1()(64bit)
libQGLViewer.so.2.5.1()(64bit)
libQtCore.so.4()(64bit)
libQtGui.so.4()(64bit)
libQtOpenGL.so.4()(64bit)
libQtXml.so.4()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
liboctomap.so.1.6()(64bit)
liboctomath.so.1.6()(64bit)
liboctovis.so.1.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
octomap-octovis (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libGL.so.1()(64bit)
libGLU.so.1()(64bit)
libQGLViewer.so.2.5.1()(64bit)
libQtCore.so.4()(64bit)
libQtGui.so.4()(64bit)
libQtOpenGL.so.4()(64bit)
libQtXml.so.4()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
liboctomap.so.1.6()(64bit)
liboctomath.so.1.6()(64bit)
liboctovis.so.1.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
octomap-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
libdynamicedt3d.so.1.6()(64bit)
liboctomap.so.1.6()(64bit)
liboctomath.so.1.6()(64bit)
liboctovis.so.1.6()(64bit)
octomap(x86-64)
dynamic-edt-3d-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
dynamic-edt-3d(x86-64)
libdynamicedt3d.so.1.6()(64bit)
Provides
--------
dynamic-edt-3d:
dynamic-edt-3d
dynamic-edt-3d(x86-64)
libdynamicedt3d.so.1.6()(64bit)
octomap-doc:
octomap-doc
octomap-octovis-devel:
octomap-octovis-devel
octomap-octovis-devel(x86-64)
octomap:
liboctomap.so.1.6()(64bit)
liboctomath.so.1.6()(64bit)
liboctovis.so.1.6()(64bit)
octomap
octomap(x86-64)
octomap-octovis:
octomap-octovis
octomap-octovis(x86-64)
octomap-devel:
octomap-devel
octomap-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(dynamicEDT3D)
pkgconfig(octomap)
dynamic-edt-3d-devel:
dynamic-edt-3d-devel
dynamic-edt-3d-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(dynamicEDT3D)
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/OctoMap/octomap/archive/6d85527c3c1c50f52f3e591ba35154f0d1ff9cf8/octomap-1.6.6-6d85527.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
487b72c05c13546586e6e62b1b12344b752efc3dcbbd2ac2b4556bc3b40e77df
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
487b72c05c13546586e6e62b1b12344b752efc3dcbbd2ac2b4556bc3b40e77df
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1107422
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
===== Solution =====
NOT approved. Please fix-up those named issues and I'll have another review.
--
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
