https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273833
Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|anto.trande(a)gmail.com |
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |anto.trande(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com> ---
- undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings are quieted by adding -fwhole-program flag
to CFLAGS variable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html
But I'm not sure that it's the right workaround.
- Tests are not execute (maybe they aren't still entirely provided).
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]: 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 (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have
unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1273833-libsoc/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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]: 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 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[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.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
attached diff).
See: (this test has no URL)
[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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libsoc-0.6.5-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
libsoc-devel-0.6.5-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
libsoc-0.6.5-1.fc24.src.rpm
libsoc.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C interface with common SoC
peripherals through generic kernel interfaces
libsoc-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libsoc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libsoc.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C interface with common SoC peripherals
through generic kernel interfaces
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: libsoc-debuginfo-0.6.5-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
libsoc.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C interface with common SoC
peripherals through generic kernel interfaces
libsoc.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5
libsoc.so.2()(64bit)
libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5
libsoc_pwm_debug
libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5
file_open
libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5
libsoc_spi_debug
libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5
file_read_str
libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5
file_close
libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5
file_write_str
libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5
libsoc_i2c_debug
libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5
libsoc_gpio_debug
libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5
file_write_int_path
libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5
file_read
libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5
file_valid
libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5
file_write
libsoc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libsoc.so.2.2.5
libsoc_debug
libsoc-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libsoc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings.
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/sagitter/1273833-libsoc/srpm/libsoc.spec 2015-10-23
22:57:51.355245048 +0200
+++ /home/sagitter/1273833-libsoc/srpm-unpacked/libsoc.spec 2015-10-21
12:51:45.000000000 +0200
@@ -2,5 +2,5 @@
Version: 0.6.5
Release: 1%{?dist}
-Summary: Interface with common SoC peripherals through generic kernel
interfaces
+Summary: interface with common SoC peripherals through generic kernel
interfaces
Group: System Environment/Libraries
Requires
--------
libsoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
libsoc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
libsoc(x86-64)
libsoc.so.2()(64bit)
Provides
--------
libsoc:
libsoc
libsoc(x86-64)
libsoc.so.2()(64bit)
libsoc-devel:
libsoc-devel
libsoc-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(libsoc)
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/jackmitch/libsoc/archive/0.6.5.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
7f0e632f759e35ce6e4622c12efd084ceacabf529d32a46c7d37b4621d0a0770
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
7f0e632f759e35ce6e4622c12efd084ceacabf529d32a46c7d37b4621d0a0770
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1273833
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