https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865371
--- Comment #21 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <kryz...@ispms.ru> ---
Package Review
==============
Issues.
Must be fixed:
1. Latest Changelog version is for 0.1 and current version is 0.3.
2. First Changelog entry is for version 1. Misspell?
3. Script to obtain upstream should be fixed. Your script is for lates
available version. Must be: packed version.
4. Summary and Description for -devel should represent -devel package.
5. Anowned dirs: /usr/share/geany and /usr/share/geany/tags. May be split-out
that geany file and make it Require: geany?
Should be fixed:
1. shared-lib-calls-exit from libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
2. unstripped-binary-or-object libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0. Is it normal for D
libraris?
3. /usr/share/doc/scid is already processed in %{doc} macros. You could drop
%{_defaultdocdir}/scid.
4. Requires: lapack -- is not neccessary. It would be pulled by auto-requires:
liblapack.so.3
5. ldc already require ldc-druntime-devel and ldc-phobos-devel. If there is a
reason to left them - good, otherwise they should be removed.
6. The same as for 5, but for -devel.
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: 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.
[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.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: 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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[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: scid-0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc23.3.x86_64.rpm
scid-devel-0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc23.3.x86_64.rpm
scid-0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc23.3.src.rpm
scid.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr
scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language
scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language
scid.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-0.20150909gitccdc560.3
['0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc23.3', '0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.3']
scid.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
scid.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language
scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language
scid-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
scid-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
scid.src: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language
scid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language
scid.src: W: invalid-url Source0: scid-20150909gitccdc560.tar.xz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: Нет такого файла или каталога
scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language
scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language
scid-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
scid-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language
scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language
scid.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-0.20150909gitccdc560.3
['0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc23.3', '0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.3']
scid.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
/lib64/libblas.so.3
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
/lib64/libgfortran.so.3
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
/lib64/librt.so.1
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
/lib64/libdl.so.2
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
/lib64/libpthread.so.0
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
/lib64/libm.so.6
scid.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings.
Requires
--------
scid-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
ldc-druntime-devel
ldc-phobos-devel
libscid-ldc.so.0()(64bit)
scid(x86-64)
scid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
lapack
ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
libblas.so.3()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libdruntime-ldc.so.67()(64bit)
libgfortran.so.3()(64bit)
liblapack.so.3()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libphobos2-ldc.so.67()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
scid-devel:
pkgconfig(scid)
scid-devel
scid-devel(x86-64)
scid:
libscid-ldc.so.0()(64bit)
scid
scid(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 865371
Buildroot used: fedora-23-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 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
