[Bug 1100925] Review Request: librevenge - a base library for writing document import filters
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue May 27 11:25:44 UTC 2014
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100925
Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain at gmail.com> ---
You should do some work ;)
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
-> I don't know what happens..
- librevenge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
-> See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency
- GPL (v3 or later)
- -----------------
- librevenge-0.0.0/data/gdb/auto-load/librevenge-0.0.py
- librevenge-0.0.0/data/gdb/auto-load/librevenge-stream-0.0.py
-> I think you forget to add this license to list. Probably you should replace
LGPLv2+ with GPLv3+ or something
- Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
-> there no links. could you provide it ? If no - sent to upstream. NOT
BLOCKER.
- Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
-> I think you could patch it. there need '-p' for `install` command. NOT
BLOCKER.
- Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gdb
-> I think for -devel subpackage should be Requires: libstdc++
- Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gdb/auto-
load/usr(libstdc++), /usr/share/gdb/auto-load(libstdc++, gdb),
/usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64(libstdc++)
-> do not own this dirs. it will be owned by libstdc++. own only files in this
directories
===== 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.
[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.
[!]: 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)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No
copyright* MPL (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "MPL (v2.0)". 2 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/brain/1100925-librevenge/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gdb
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gdb/auto-
load/usr(libstdc++), /usr/share/gdb/auto-load(libstdc++, gdb),
/usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64(libstdc++)
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: 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 266240 bytes in 5 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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: 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 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
Python:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[-]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in librevenge-
doc
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[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.
[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.
[!]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[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:
[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: librevenge-0.0.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
librevenge-devel-0.0.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
librevenge-doc-0.0.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
librevenge-0.0.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
librevenge.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0:
0001-fix-type-sizes-for-CPPUNIT_ASSERT_EQUAL.patch
librevenge.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1:
0001-fix-license-headers-for-gdb-printers.patch
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint librevenge-devel librevenge-doc librevenge
librevenge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/librevenge-stream-0.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
librevenge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
librevenge-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
librevenge(x86-64)
librevenge-0.0.so.0()(64bit)
librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0()(64bit)
librevenge-stream-0.0.so.0()(64bit)
pkgconfig(librevenge-0.0)
librevenge-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
librevenge (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libboost_filesystem.so.1.54.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
librevenge-0.0.so.0()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
librevenge-devel:
librevenge-devel
librevenge-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(librevenge-0.0)
pkgconfig(librevenge-generators-0.0)
pkgconfig(librevenge-stream-0.0)
librevenge-doc:
librevenge-doc
librevenge:
librevenge
librevenge(x86-64)
librevenge-0.0.so.0()(64bit)
librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0()(64bit)
librevenge-stream-0.0.so.0()(64bit)
Source checksums
----------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/libwpd/librevenge-0.0.0.tar.xz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
46b56f21c05d06cc9d083a3ad7bfccfa75267cfa193289d0db5d55d487c14870
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
46b56f21c05d06cc9d083a3ad7bfccfa75267cfa193289d0db5d55d487c14870
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1100925 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -v
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP,
Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
--
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
More information about the package-review
mailing list