https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132
Björn "besser82" Esser <besse...@fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Björn "besser82" Esser <besse...@fedoraproject.org> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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]: 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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "NTP", "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v2 or
later)", "Unknown or generated". 202 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/besser82/vm_shared/fedora/review/1467132-json-c12/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 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]: 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 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
json-c12-devel , json-c12-doc , json-c12-debuginfo
---> False positive. Dependencies are fine.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: json-c12-0.12.1-3.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
json-c12-devel-0.12.1-3.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
json-c12-doc-0.12.1-3.el7.centos.noarch.rpm
json-c12-debuginfo-0.12.1-3.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
json-c12-0.12.1-3.el7.centos.src.rpm
json-c12.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.12.1-3
['0.12.1-3.el7.centos', '0.12.1-3.centos']
json-c12.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libjson-c12.so.2.0.2
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
json-c12.x86_64: W: no-documentation
json-c12-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: json-c12-debuginfo-0.12.1-3.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
json-c12.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.12.1-3
['0.12.1-3.el7.centos', '0.12.1-3.centos']
json-c12.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libjson-c12.so.2.0.2
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
json-c12.x86_64: W: no-documentation
json-c12-debuginfo.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Requires
--------
json-c12-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
json-c12(x86-64)
libjson-c12.so.2()(64bit)
json-c12-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
json-c12 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
json-c12-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
json-c12-devel:
json-c12-devel
json-c12-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(json-c12)
json-c12-doc:
json-c12-doc
json-c12:
json-c12
json-c12(x86-64)
libjson-c12.so.2()(64bit)
json-c12-debuginfo:
json-c12-debuginfo
json-c12-debuginfo(x86-64)
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/json-c/json-c/archive/json-c-0.12.1-20160607.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
989e09b99ded277a0a651cd18b81fcb76885fea08769d7a21b6da39fb8a34816
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
989e09b99ded277a0a651cd18b81fcb76885fea08769d7a21b6da39fb8a34816
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -D EPEL6=1 -m epel-7-x86_64 -b 1467132
Buildroot used: epel-7-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
===== Solution =====
Package APPROVED!!! I'd recommend to reset the Release-tag to 1 during import
and clear the changelog to just have one entry:
* Mon May 8 2017 Jeffrey Lau <jeffrey....@ribose.com> - 0.12.1-1
- Initial compat-package for EPEL >= 6, based on json-c from recent Fedora
Since this is a compat-pkg for EPEL only, you must retire the master branch in
dist-git immediately. It is pretty easy to do: `fedpkg retire 'Compat-pkg for
EPEL, only.'`. After that you can import the package on the epel7 branch,
build it and merge it down to el6 and build it there again.
If you have further questions about how to proceed from now on, you we can
discuss this by email.
--
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
