https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448557

Zdenek Dohnal <zdoh...@redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c
                   |                            |om)



--- Comment #16 from Zdenek Dohnal <zdoh...@redhat.com> ---
There is results of fedora review with some issues at top, which should be
resolved before we can move on. Most items are good, but there is several items
to solve.


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: gcc-c++
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- .so files must be either versioned and then be in -libs subpackage and that
subpackage must have %post+%postun scriplets with '/sbin/ldconfig' and . Or
unversioned .so files must be in -devel subpackage.
- missing licenses in spec - there must be all licenses used in package
- package must own directories - /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps,
  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128
- libhidx_server_daemon must be in %{_libexecdir}/%{name} directory - if daemon
is meant to run by system rather than by user
- you should use %{name} instead hidviz in paths
- package contains *daemon executable - could it run as service in systemd?
- convert function can be in %install scriptlet - I think it makes more sense
  to have it in same place with 'install' command


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
- .so files must be either versioned and then package must have %post+%postun
  scriplets with '/sbin/ldconfig'. Or .so files must be in -devel subpackage.

[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:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
- missing licenses in spec - there must be all licenses used in package

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0) GPL (v3
     or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 30 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/zdohnal/repo_upstream/hidviz/review-hidviz/licensecheck.txt
- missing licenses in spec - there must be all licenses used in package

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128
[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.
[!]: Development files must be in a -devel package
- it can be false positive - it depends on purpose of *.so files

[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
- you should use %{name} instead hidviz in paths

[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.
- libhidx_server_daemon must be in %{_libexecdir}%{name} directory

[-]: 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.
- package contains *daemon executable - could it run as service in systemd?

[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
     contains icons.
     Note: icons in hidviz
[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
- problems mentioned above

[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]: 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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 hidviz-
     debuginfo
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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: hidviz-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
          hidviz-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
          hidviz-0.1.4-1.fc25.src.rpm
hidviz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hidviz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: hidviz-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
hidviz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hidviz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



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

hidviz (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.7)(64bit)
    libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit)
    libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libhidx.so()(64bit)
    libhidx_server.so()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libprotobuf.so.9()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



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

hidviz:
    application()
    application(hidviz.desktop)
    hidviz
    hidviz(x86-64)
    libhidx.so()(64bit)
    libhidx_server.so()(64bit)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
hidviz: /usr/lib64/hidviz/libhidx.so
hidviz: /usr/lib64/hidviz/libhidx_server.so

Source checksums
----------------
http://hidviz.org/releases/hidviz-0.1.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
a68f5626b184c76cc54bd60735b6fbe715d86958f9a4ef3147b30b9bb8dbff9b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a68f5626b184c76cc54bd60735b6fbe715d86958f9a4ef3147b30b9bb8dbff9b


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n hidviz
Buildroot used: fedora-25-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