https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375765
Randy Barlow <ra...@electronsweatshop.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |space...@gmail.com
Flags| |needinfo?(space...@gmail.co
| |m)
--- Comment #4 from Randy Barlow <ra...@electronsweatshop.com> ---
Hello Eric! I've found a few things we need to address below. To get approval,
you will need to address at least the items in the MUST section. The others are
suggestions for you.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gawk
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
===== MUST items =====
bowlofeggs notes:
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.
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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "ISC", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3
or later)", "Unknown or generated". 574 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/rbarlow/reviews/1375765-yosys/licensecheck.txt
bowlofeggs: It seems that the license is complicated here. You should
probably write: ISC, MIT/X11 (BSD Like), LGPL 2.1, and GPL v3 in the
license field. The GPL code seems to be in .v files only, so it is not
being combined with the other licenses in my analysis.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
bowlofeggs: Though it doesn't appear that viz.js is bundled, it does
appear to be a build dependency. I am not certain whether this is or
is not allowed so we should do research to find out (if you know it to
be and can link me to documentation, please do!). It would certainly be
cleaner if viz.js were packaged. I am also not certain what it is being
used for. Does it get used to generate the pdfs in some way? If it
isn't truly needed, perhaps we can just patch the Makefile so it doesn't
try to use it.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
bowlofeggs: You should reference the BZ in the changelog, like:
- Initial version (#1375765).
[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).
bowlofeggs: You should use a macro for /usr/bin/abc
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
bowlofeggs: The /usr/share/yosys/python3/smtio.py file doesn't belong
in /usr/share as far as I can tell, and also doesn't have a reason to
be executable. It seems to only define some classes and data
structures. I believe it belongs in %{python2_sitelib}/smtio.py
instead. Is seems to be used by /usr/bin/yosys-smtbmc but that code
is mangling the Python path to find this library. I suggest working
with upstream to remove the path manipulation and to put smtio.py in
the python2 sitelib where it belongs. Then it can just be imported
naturally.
[-]: 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 20480 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]: 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 Source2:
http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yosys/yosys_0.6-6.debian.tar.xz
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
bowlofeggs: I recommend filing an issue upstream to request a LICENSE
file in the repo, and then documenting a URL to your ticket in your
spec file.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in yosys-
doc , yosys-devel , yosys-debuginfo
bowlofeggs: You could put the %{?_isa} on your subpackages.
[?]: 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.
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
bowlofeggs: I think it's upset about the man pages URL returning 404
[-]: 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.
bowlofeggs: Upstream does appear to have a folder called tests.
[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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3880960 bytes in /usr/share
bowlofeggs: I suggest moving the non-arch data into a noarch package.
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: yosys-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.x86_64.rpm
yosys-doc-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.x86_64.rpm
yosys-devel-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.x86_64.rpm
yosys-debuginfo-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.x86_64.rpm
yosys-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.src.rpm
yosys.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Yosys
yosys.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Yosys
yosys.src: W: invalid-url Source2:
http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yosys/yosys_0.6-6.debian.tar.xz HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: yosys-debuginfo-0.6.0-1.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc26.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
yosys.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Yosys
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires
--------
yosys-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/bash
yosys
yosys (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
abc
graphviz
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libffi.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libreadline.so.6()(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit)
libtcl8.6.so()(64bit)
python-xdot
rtld(GNU_HASH)
yosys-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
yosys
yosys-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
yosys-devel:
yosys-devel
yosys-devel(x86-64)
yosys:
yosys
yosys(x86-64)
yosys-doc:
yosys-doc
yosys-doc(x86-64)
yosys-debuginfo:
yosys-debuginfo
yosys-debuginfo(x86-64)
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/cliffordwolf/yosys/archive/8f5bf6de32bcc478312d8f5410826b4894ebadba.tar.gz#/yosys-8f5bf6d.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
624b5c74dfc8374810b762aefec6dc3cb215811d1b6807c82a08f149d3dcf92a
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
624b5c74dfc8374810b762aefec6dc3cb215811d1b6807c82a08f149d3dcf92a
https://github.com/mdaines/viz.js/releases/download/0.0.3/viz.js :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
0eb4139c4a6067e73585338e32e9f7515490edd885d16147322a48e43b120012
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
0eb4139c4a6067e73585338e32e9f7515490edd885d16147322a48e43b120012
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1375765
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
