https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #2 from Carl George 🤠 <carl(a)redhat.com> ---
I tried to run fedora-review on this, but it failed to build (see the item
below about missing build requirements). Here is a partial manual review of
what I've noticed so far.
- Using 0.1 for the Release field is fine during the review, but it should be
raised to 1 before being imported into dist-git. After that it should always
be 1 or higher [0], unless packaging a prerelease version or git snapshot.
- Remove all instances of `(R)` from the Summary field and the %description
sections [1].
- The INSTALL file indicates a complicated licensing situation [2]. All of
these licenses must be reflected in the License field, using the combined
scenario guidelines [3]. I also noticed that the INSTALL file mentions a
LICENSE.GPL file, but that does not exist upstream. Could you assist in
getting it added?
- Source0 is not following the recommended format [4]. It should look like
this:
https://github.com/intel/%{name}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.ta...
- There are multiple missing build requirements. I can tell at least these are
missing:
autoconf automake libtool systemd-devel openssl-devel zlib-devel
- RPM will automatically adds requirements for several glibc virtual provides,
so the explicit requires for glibc is redundant and must be removed [5].
- The requires for /sbin/ldconfig and invoking that during the
%post/%preun/%postun scriptlets should be removed [6].
- The devel package's requirement on the base package must be arch-specific
[7].
- Rather than conditionally running autogen.sh during %build, it would be
better to always run `autoreconf -vif` during %prep.
- There is a lot going on during %install. Is there a Makefile target we could
use instead to improve spec file legibility [8]?
- The %pre scriptlet should use the template for dynamic allocation [9].
- Man pages must be referenced with a wildcard pattern to allow RPM to use its
preferred compression format (which may not be gz in the future) [10].
- The `%files devel` section can be trimmed down by using just
`%{_includedir}/qat` (which is recursive), rather than the directory and
globbing all the files in the directory.
- The version in the changelog entry (2010u) doesn't match the Version field.
[0]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_si...
[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_trademarks_in...
[2]
https://github.com/intel/qatlib/blob/20.08.0/INSTALL#L33-L46
[3]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidel...
[4]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git...
[5]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_requ...
[6]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries
[7]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_bas...
[8]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_legibility
[9]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UsersAndGroups/...
[10]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
--
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