https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1260250
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underw...@gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues
- It would be nice to do a rm -rf bin in %prep to remove the bundled
binaries, just for sanity.
- In the doc directory there is a word document describing the file
format etc. It would be possible to make a PDF of this using
libreoffice with
libreoffice --headless --convert-to pdf JPEGXR_DPK_Spec_1.0.doc
I would normally say this is optional, but actually, this doc
contains the license for the software, so is the closest thing to a
LICENSE file. So, although it adds buildtime bloat installing
libreoffice, I'd encourage you to build the pdf and ship it as a
%doc. But it's not mandatory.
- See various things below.
===== 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]: 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.
The license is included in the doc file mentioned above, which is not
technically "in its own file".
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (2 clause)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jgu/Fedora/1260250-jxrlib/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[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.
[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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Patches need a comment with a link to upstream ticket (I know you're
taking care of that as I type this).
[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]: 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source0:
http://jxrlib.codeplex.com/downloads/get/685249#/jxrlib_1_1.tar.gz
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
OK, the current Source0 url doesn't work. I say coedplex is a bit of a
nightmare in this regard. Can you come up with something that works?
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
The absence of a LICENSE or COPYING file should be raised upstream.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[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.
See above.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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: jxrlib-1.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm
jxrlib-devel-1.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm
jxrlib-1.1-2.fc24.src.rpm
jxrlib.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) jpegxr -> JPEG
jxrlib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jpegxr -> JPEG
jxrlib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary JxrDecApp
jxrlib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary JxrEncApp
jxrlib-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
jxrlib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
jxrlib.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) jpegxr -> JPEG
jxrlib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jpegxr -> JPEG
jxrlib.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://jxrlib.codeplex.com/downloads/get/685249#/jxrlib_1_1.tar.gz HTTP Error
404: Not Found
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: jxrlib-debuginfo-1.1-2.fc24.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
jxrlib-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
jxrlib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
jxrlib.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libjxrglue.so.0.0.0
libjxrglue.so.0()(64bit)
jxrlib.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libjpegxr.so.0.0.0
libjpegxr.so.0()(64bit)
jxrlib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary JxrEncApp
jxrlib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary JxrDecApp
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Requires
--------
jxrlib-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jxrlib(x86-64)
libjpegxr.so.0()(64bit)
libjxrglue.so.0()(64bit)
jxrlib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libjpegxr.so.0()(64bit)
libjxrglue.so.0()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
jxrlib-devel:
jxrlib-devel
jxrlib-devel(x86-64)
jxrlib:
jxrlib
jxrlib(x86-64)
libjpegxr.so.0()(64bit)
libjxrglue.so.0()(64bit)
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1260250
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, 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
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
