[Bug 957918] Review Request: libxmp - A multi-format module playback library
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue May 14 22:54:12 UTC 2013
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957918
Paulo Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr
| |ade at gmail.com
Assignee|nobody at fedoraproject.org |paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr
| |ade at gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Paulo Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade at gmail.com> ---
Hi, the package appears good, and I feel if any issues
arise it is due to a vague possibility of it implementing
some patented algorithm or issues with the public domain
licensed files.
I will try to carefully review all files to make more
specific questions about the possible refactoring and/or
bundling of system libraries in the decoders, unpack, etc,
implementation files, but any early comment by you
(or Claudio :-) is welcome).
[?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Invalid buildroot found:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -u -n)
Unless you plan to package to epel5, you must remove the
BuildRoot tag, and still, would be better to have the
buildroot tag only in the epel5 branch.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
Please do to a breakdown of the license in the spec. Usually
prefixing the license name as a comment before files in the
%files sections.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
Generic fedora-review output follows.
---%<---
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]: %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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libxmp-
devel
[?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or
generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2 or later)
(with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GPL
(unversioned/unknown version)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 424 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/pcpa/957918-libxmp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 348160 bytes in 12 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[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]: 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 %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[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).
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Invalid buildroot found:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -u -n)
[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]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[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: libxmp-4.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
libxmp-devel-4.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
libxmp.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti
libxmp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip, g zip
libxmp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libxmp.so.4.1.1
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
libxmp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti
libxmp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip,
g zip
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint libxmp-devel libxmp
libxmp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti
libxmp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip,
g zip
libxmp.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti
libxmp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip, g zip
libxmp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libxmp.so.4.1.1
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
libxmp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
libxmp
libxmp.so.4()(64bit)
libxmp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
libxmp-devel:
libxmp-devel
libxmp-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(libxmp)
libxmp:
libxmp
libxmp(x86-64)
libxmp.so.4()(64bit)
libxmp.so.4(XMP_4.0)(64bit)
libxmp.so.4(XMP_4.1)(64bit)
Source checksums
----------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/xmp/libxmp/4.1.1/libxmp-4.1.1.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
1509d7c04fcb3ae873aad35c9f84056049a6d63b19936af38cf93ecb794c33b1
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
1509d7c04fcb3ae873aad35c9f84056049a6d63b19936af38cf93ecb794c33b1
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -b 957918
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DKDEdyCUQf&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the package-review
mailing list