https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854281
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
- In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we discourage globbing the
major soname version, instead be more specific:
%{_libdir}/libdlib.so.19*
- Some MIT thing is shipped too, add it to the corresponding license field:
Expat License
-------------
dlib-19.20/docs/python/_static/jquery.js
dlib-19.20/docs/python/_static/underscore.js
- Use %global instead of %define:
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Note: %define requiring justification: %define py_setup_args --no
USE_SSE4_INSTRUCTIONS
- Remove Sphinx build leftovers:
dlib-doc.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/dlib-doc/docs/python/.buildinfo
- The documentation subpackage should be noarch
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Boost Software License
1.0", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Public
domain",
"Public domain", "NTP License", "BSD 3-clause
"New" or "Revised"
License", "zlib/libpng license", "Expat License", "*No
copyright*
Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public Domain Dedication". 3726
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/dlib/review-dlib/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.
[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 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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
python3-dlib
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Note: %define requiring justification: %define py_setup_args --no
USE_SSE4_INSTRUCTIONS
[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.
===== 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 76083200 bytes in /usr/share dlib-
doc-19.20-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm:76062720
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_...
[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: dlib-19.20-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
dlib-devel-19.20-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
python3-dlib-19.20-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
dlib-doc-19.20-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
dlib-debuginfo-19.20-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
dlib-debugsource-19.20-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
dlib-19.20-1.fc33.src.rpm
dlib.x86_64: W: no-documentation
dlib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
python3-dlib.x86_64: W: no-documentation
dlib-doc.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/dlib-doc/docs/python/.buildinfo
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
--
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