https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327071
--- Comment #5 from Michal Schmidt <mschm...@redhat.com> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= The COPYING file (full text of the GPLv2) is missing. The license header in empty_usnic.c and the LICENSE file refer to it. This should be fixed by upstream. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text configure.ac uses AM_SILENT_RULES. Please call make with V=1 to make gcc command lines visible in build.log. Please use .tar.bz2 from upstream instead of .tar.gz. It's smaller. Add a comment above the ExcludeArch: # we don't have libibverbs on s390 or something similar. ===== 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. Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. #### the COPYING file is missing [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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. [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. #### Underscores are usually disliked in package names, but an exception is in place for packages where it's already in the upstream name. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators [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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. #### Justification: It does use ExcludeArch due to libibverbs itself using it. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: 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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: 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. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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 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: libusnic_verbs-2.0.1-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm libusnic_verbs-debuginfo-2.0.1-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm libusnic_verbs-2.0.1-2.fc25.src.rpm libusnic_verbs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libibverbs -> verbalizes libusnic_verbs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) usNIC -> snick libusnic_verbs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libibverbs -> verbalizes libusnic_verbs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usNIC -> snick libusnic_verbs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sys -> says, sis, syn libusnic_verbs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stderr -> std err, std-err, stander libusnic_verbs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace libusnic_verbs.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/libibverbs.d/usnic.driver libusnic_verbs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libusnic -> libidinous libusnic_verbs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libusnic -> libidinous libusnic_verbs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libibverbs -> verbalizes libusnic_verbs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) usNIC -> snick libusnic_verbs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libibverbs -> verbalizes libusnic_verbs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usNIC -> snick libusnic_verbs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sys -> says, sis, syn libusnic_verbs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stderr -> std err, std-err, stander libusnic_verbs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace libusnic_verbs.src:5: W: unversioned-explicit-provides libibverbs-driver.%{_arch} libusnic_verbs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/cisco/libusnic_verbs/releases/download/v2.0.1/libusnic_verbs-2.0.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 19 warnings. Requires -------- libusnic_verbs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libibverbs.so.1()(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.0)(64bit) libibverbs.so.1(IBVERBS_1.1)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libusnic_verbs-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libusnic_verbs: libibverbs-driver.x86_64 libusnic_verbs libusnic_verbs(x86-64) libusnic_verbs-rdmav2.so()(64bit) libusnic_verbs-debuginfo: libusnic_verbs-debuginfo libusnic_verbs-debuginfo(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- libusnic_verbs: /usr/lib64/libusnic_verbs-rdmav2.so #### This is normal for a libibverbs plugin. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cisco/libusnic_verbs/releases/download/v2.0.1/libusnic_verbs-2.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7f09c7c315ab59e8565b2ed3f540b6496e5378d83bf0554fbeb257408e3118e3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f09c7c315ab59e8565b2ed3f540b6496e5378d83bf0554fbeb257408e3118e3 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1327071 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
