https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377877

Paul Wouters <pwout...@redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |VERIFIED
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Paul Wouters <pwout...@redhat.com> ---

Package PASSED - minor updates needed


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
  Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in libluksmeta
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
- 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.
  Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

- Use %license instead of %doc in rawhide

- Check the missing requires section below for some of the interpackage
warnings it showed.

Personal Pet Peeves of reviewer:
==================================
I don't like macros in URL: or Source: as it makes it harder to select
the target url. I personally only use macros where "re-use" makes sense,
like post/pre/etc service names.

Use %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ?

===== 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]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or
     generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/paul/fedora/1377877-luksmeta/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 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]: 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:
[-]: 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
     libluksmeta , luksmeta-debuginfo
[ ]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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: luksmeta-2-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          libluksmeta-2-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          libluksmeta-devel-2-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          luksmeta-debuginfo-2-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          luksmeta-2-1.fc26.src.rpm
luksmeta.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data,
meta-data, metatarsal
luksmeta.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data,
meta-data, metatarsal
luksmeta.x86_64: W: no-documentation
luksmeta.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary luksmeta
libluksmeta.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data,
meta-data, metatarsal
libluksmeta.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta
data, meta-data, metatarsal
libluksmeta.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin
/usr/lib64/libluksmeta.so.0.0.0
libluksmeta.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/lib64/libluksmeta.so.0.0.0
libluksmeta-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libluksmeta-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
luksmeta.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data,
meta-data, metatarsal
luksmeta.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data,
meta-data, metatarsal
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: luksmeta-debuginfo-2-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
luksmeta.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data,
meta-data, metatarsal
luksmeta.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data,
meta-data, metatarsal
luksmeta.x86_64: W: no-documentation
luksmeta.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary luksmeta
libluksmeta-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libluksmeta-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libluksmeta.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data,
meta-data, metatarsal
libluksmeta.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta
data, meta-data, metatarsal
libluksmeta.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin
/usr/lib64/libluksmeta.so.0.0.0
libluksmeta.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/lib64/libluksmeta.so.0.0.0
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings.



Requires
--------
luksmeta-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

luksmeta (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcryptsetup.so.4()(64bit)
    libcryptsetup.so.4(CRYPTSETUP_1.0)(64bit)
    libluksmeta(x86-64)
    libluksmeta.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libluksmeta-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libluksmeta(x86-64)
    libluksmeta.so.0()(64bit)
    pkgconfig
    pkgconfig(libcryptsetup)

libluksmeta (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcryptsetup.so.4()(64bit)
    libcryptsetup.so.4(CRYPTSETUP_1.0)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
luksmeta-debuginfo:
    luksmeta-debuginfo
    luksmeta-debuginfo(x86-64)

luksmeta:
    luksmeta
    luksmeta(x86-64)

libluksmeta-devel:
    libluksmeta-devel
    libluksmeta-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(luksmeta)

libluksmeta:
    libluksmeta
    libluksmeta(x86-64)
    libluksmeta.so.0()(64bit)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/latchset/luksmeta/releases/download/v2/luksmeta-2.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
4e35b6e8235487d6e44ed65455bd37767fc1fe84ac4d193461320b37e380a1bd
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
4e35b6e8235487d6e44ed65455bd37767fc1fe84ac4d193461320b37e380a1bd


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1377877
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to