https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897734
Mattia Verga <mattia.verga(a)protonmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Mattia Verga <mattia.verga(a)protonmail.com> ---
Package APPROVED, but please remove the ldconfig call before importing the
package (see below).
Also, you should report upstream about the usage of deprecated AutoTools macro.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in librttopo
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General
Public
License v2.0 or later". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in
/home/rpmbuild/reviews/1897734-librttopo/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 10240 bytes in 4 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
See:
https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[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: librttopo-1.1.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
librttopo-devel-1.1.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
librttopo-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
librttopo-debugsource-1.1.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
librttopo-1.1.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
librttopo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) topologies -> typologies,
topological
librttopo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US topologies ->
typologies, topological
librttopo.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librttopo.so.1.1.0
exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
librttopo-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
librttopo.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) topologies -> typologies,
topological
librttopo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US topologies ->
typologies, topological
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: librttopo-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
librttopo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) topologies -> typologies,
topological
librttopo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US topologies ->
typologies, topological
librttopo.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/librttopo.so.1.1.0
exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
librttopo-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://git.osgeo.org/gitea/rttopo/librttopo/archive/librttopo-1.1.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
2e2fcabb48193a712a6c76ac9a9be2a53f82e32f91a2bc834d9f1b4fa9cd879f
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
2e2fcabb48193a712a6c76ac9a9be2a53f82e32f91a2bc834d9f1b4fa9cd879f
Requires
--------
librttopo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgeos_c.so.1()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
librttopo-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
librttopo(x86-64)
librttopo.so.1()(64bit)
librttopo-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
librttopo-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
librttopo:
librttopo
librttopo(x86-64)
librttopo.so.1()(64bit)
librttopo-devel:
librttopo-devel
librttopo-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(rttopo)
librttopo-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
librttopo-debuginfo
librttopo-debuginfo(x86-64)
librttopo-debugsource:
librttopo-debugsource
librttopo-debugsource(x86-64)
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: librttopo/configure.ac:11
AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: librttopo/configure.ac:63
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1897734
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, fonts, Python, Haskell, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl,
Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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