https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382152
Randy Barlow <randy(a)electronsweatshop.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jared-wallace(a)us.ibm.com
Flags| |needinfo?(jared-wallace@us.
| |ibm.com)
--- Comment #4 from Randy Barlow <randy(a)electronsweatshop.com> ---
Hello Jared! I'm thrilled that you want to become a Fedora packager, and I'm
happy to work with you to get you sponsored. In addition to this package, I'd
like to request that you perform practice reviews on 3 other packages that need
review. Make sure to mention on those reviews that they are practice reviews so
the submitter doesn't get their hopes up too much ☺ You should put links to
those three packages here, and I'll go take a look as well. This helps
demonstrate that you have a decent command of the packaging guidelines, and is
good since once you are a packager you will have the power to approve other
packages!
I've taken a look at your package, and it's in pretty good shape. There are
just a few things to fix before it meets the required guidelines, and I've also
included a few optional suggestions as well. To be clear, I would only require
you to fix the items noted in the MUST section below, but the others are nice
improvements too. I put notes next to "randy: " to add my own thoughts here and
there:
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.
randy: This means that your Release: should be 1%{?dist} instead of just 1.
- 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.
Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
randy: Instead of marking the COPYYING file as a %doc, use %license COPYING.
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/orpie
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Pac...
randy: I think this will probably be OK - we'll have to go through the
unretiring
process after getting you sponsored.
===== 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]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL
(v2)",
"GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated".
105
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/rbarlow/reviews/1382152-orpie/licensecheck.txt
randy: You can and should list all the licenses included in this package
in the
license field. Looks like GPLv2, GPLv2+, and LGPLv2 would be
correct.
[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.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
randy: You can just drop that defattr line - the attr you defined is the
default.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 368640 bytes in 7 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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 =====
randy:
These are some things I recommend, but they are not required.
[!]: I don't think you need _hardened_build 1, unless you want that for EPEL:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages
If you do want it for EPEL, we should do research to find out if it is
needed
there or not (I don't know).
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
randy: You can just drop %{?_smp_mflags} after make to get this.
[x]: 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 orpie-
debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
randy: Seems like a pretty cool tool!
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
randy: It'd be good to throw a comment over that patch showing a link
to the upstream issue.
[-]: 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.
randy: It doesn't build on arm, but you explained that and it's OK.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
randy: I see that you've commented out the tests - do they not pass? I
recommend trying to get them working, but it's not required.
[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:
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: orpie-1.5.2-1.x86_64.rpm
orpie-debuginfo-1.5.2-1.x86_64.rpm
orpie-1.5.2-1.src.rpm
orpie.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/bin/orpie
orpie.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/bin/orpie-curses-keys
orpie.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/orpie/COPYING
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: orpie-debuginfo-1.5.2-1.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
orpie.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/bin/orpie-curses-keys
orpie.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/bin/orpie
orpie.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/orpie/COPYING
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires
--------
orpie (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config(orpie)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libgsl.so.19()(64bit)
libgslcblas.so.0()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libncurses.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libtinfo.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
orpie-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
orpie:
config(orpie)
orpie
orpie(x86-64)
orpie-debuginfo:
orpie-debuginfo
orpie-debuginfo(x86-64)
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pelzlpj/orpie/releases/download/release-1.5.2/orpie-1....
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
de557fc7f608c6cb1f44a965d3ae07fc6baf2b02a0d7994b89d6a0e0d87d3d6d
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
de557fc7f608c6cb1f44a965d3ae07fc6baf2b02a0d7994b89d6a0e0d87d3d6d
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1382152
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP
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