https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490057
Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11) <zebo...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until Mon 11) <zebo...@gmail.com>
---
Hello,
- You can use these URL as SourceX:
Source0:
https://github.com/%{cname}/%{cname}/archive/v%{version}/%{cname}-%{version}.tar.gz
# git submodules
%global pr_commit 7ad96383f639d7625a843c6e97b3ae5579507350
Source1:
https://github.com/%{cname}/PoissonRecon/archive/%{pr_commit}/PoissonRecon-%{pr_commit}.tar.gz
%global nh_commit 61ba8056d72eedffadb838d9051cc8975ec7a825
Source2:
https://github.com/%{cname}/normals_Hough/archive/%{nh_commit}/normals_Hough-%{nh_commit}.tar.gz
- You should use the %make_install macro instead of make DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
install %{?_smp_mflags}
- Similarly use %make_build instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}
- The documentation is rather big, it should go in a -doc subpackage.
- Since you are installing icons into hicolor, you must add:
Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
for directory ownership.
- Package fails to build on multiple architectures:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21793708
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 15974400 bytes in 5 files.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)",
"Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v1.1)",
"zlib/libpng", "LGPL", "GPL (v2) LGPL (v2 or later)", "BSD
(unspecified)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2)".
834 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/cloudcompare/review-
cloudcompare/licensecheck.txt
[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/256x256/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32
[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
[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]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in cloudcompare
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in cloudcompare
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
cloudcompare-debuginfo
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 16056320 bytes in /usr/share
cloudcompare-2.8.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm:16056320
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.
--
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
