https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196780
--- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> ---
Issues:
=======
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
Permissions should be 0755, not 0775, on libraries. But nobody cares too much,
so this can be ignored if it is inconvenient to fix.
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/tmp/1196780-xtuple-
openrpt/diff.txt
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
I assume that this is a desynchronization caused by latest changes. Just make
sure that the tarballs match when the package is actually built.
Suggested summary: Reporting utility and libraries for postbooks
There *should* be a desktop file, and an appdata file to boot.
Unless you consider the *gui versions not really useful. What is the plan here:
are users supposed to use /usr/bin/importmqlgui, /usr/bin/importrptgui, etc?
===== 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)", "Unknown or generated". 53 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1196780-xtuple-
openrpt/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/openrpt/OpenRPT, /usr/share/openrpt
Should be owned by the package.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/openrpt/OpenRPT,
/usr/share/openrpt
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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 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]: 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]: 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).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in xtuple-
openrpt-libs , xtuple-openrpt-devel
I think an explicit
Requires: %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
should be added to the main package. Right now it only has the automatically
generated requires, so if the package is updated without changing so versions,
-libs could get out of sync. Better to prevent that.
[x]: Package functions as described.
Binaries run ;)
[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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
%check would be nice, but is not required.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: 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 1454080 bytes in /usr/share
Hm, why is /usr/share/openrpt/OpenRPT/images in -devel? Isn't it used in the
main 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: xtuple-openrpt-3.3.7-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
xtuple-openrpt-libs-3.3.7-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
xtuple-openrpt-devel-3.3.7-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
xtuple-openrpt-3.3.7-1.fc23.src.rpm
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xTuple reporting utility
and libraries
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrpt-graph
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary importmqlgui
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exportrpt
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary importrpt
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rptrender
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary metasql
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrpt
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary importrptgui
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libopenrpt
-> liberation
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/libopenrptcommon.so.1.0.0 0775L
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/libMetaSQL.so.1.0.0 0775L
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/licenses/xtuple-openrpt/COPYING
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/librenderer.so.1.0.0 0775L
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/libwrtembed.so.1.0.0 0775L
xtuple-openrpt-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
xtuple-openrpt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xtuple-openrpt.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C xTuple reporting utility and
libraries
xtuple-openrpt.src:51: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
xtuple-openrpt.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
xtuple-openrpt.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
xtuple-openrpt.src: W: file-size-mismatch v3.3.7.tar.gz = 1218978,
https://github.com/xtuple/openrpt/archive/v3.3.7.tar.gz = 1198328
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 19 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: xtuple-openrpt-debuginfo-3.3.7-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
xtuple-openrpt-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
xtuple-openrpt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libopenrpt
-> liberation
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libopenrptcommon.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libopenrptcommon.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libMetaSQL.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libMetaSQL.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/librenderer.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libQtNetwork.so.4
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/librenderer.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libwrtembed.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/libopenrptcommon.so.1.0.0 0775L
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/libMetaSQL.so.1.0.0 0775L
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/licenses/xtuple-openrpt/COPYING
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/librenderer.so.1.0.0 0775L
xtuple-openrpt-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/lib64/libwrtembed.so.1.0.0 0775L
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C xTuple reporting utility
and libraries
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrpt-graph
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary importmqlgui
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary exportrpt
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary importrpt
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rptrender
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary metasql
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrpt
xtuple-openrpt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary importrptgui
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 25 warnings.
Requires
--------
xtuple-openrpt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libdmtx-devel
qt-devel
xtuple-openrpt-libs(x86-64)
xtuple-openrpt-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libMetaSQL.so.1()(64bit)
libQtCore.so.4()(64bit)
libQtGui.so.4()(64bit)
libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit)
libQtSql.so.4()(64bit)
libQtXml.so.4()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdmtx.so.0()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libopenrptcommon.so.1()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
librenderer.so.1()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
xtuple-openrpt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libMetaSQL.so.1()(64bit)
libQtCore.so.4()(64bit)
libQtGui.so.4()(64bit)
libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit)
libQtSql.so.4()(64bit)
libQtXml.so.4()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdmtx.so.0()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libopenrptcommon.so.1()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
librenderer.so.1()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libwrtembed.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
xtuple-openrpt-devel:
xtuple-openrpt-devel
xtuple-openrpt-devel(x86-64)
xtuple-openrpt-libs:
libMetaSQL.so.1()(64bit)
libopenrptcommon.so.1()(64bit)
librenderer.so.1()(64bit)
libwrtembed.so.1()(64bit)
xtuple-openrpt-libs
xtuple-openrpt-libs(x86-64)
xtuple-openrpt:
xtuple-openrpt
xtuple-openrpt(x86-64)
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/xtuple/openrpt/archive/v3.3.7.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
b41cec750dbd463a9433ac654069bed9827d50c3ac2b6866ace052611b03913c
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a9e6ab5660d8f01abe29ca566c30f891bc895e52fe853ff98b4680802f7dbca4
diff -r also reports differences
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1196780
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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, 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