[Bug 1218749] Review Request: yast2-devtools - YaST Development Tools
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue May 5 20:11:19 UTC 2015
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218749
Florian "der-flo" Lehner <dev at der-flo.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |dev at der-flo.net
Assignee|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dev at der-flo.net
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Florian "der-flo" Lehner <dev at der-flo.net> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- 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.
Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
---> NOT an issue! Package uses %license
===== MUST items =====
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:
"GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have unknown
license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/YaST2, /usr/share/YaST2
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/YaST2, /usr/share/YaST2
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/vim/site(vim-plugin-
powerline), /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp(autoconf, emacs-filesystem),
/usr/share/emacs(autoconf, emacs-filesystem), /usr/share/vim(vim-common)
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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 92160 bytes in 6 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]: 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
===== 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
Note: yast2-devtools : /usr/share/pkgconfig/yast2-devtools.pc
[-]: 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.
---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9661051
[x]: %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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[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
---> Please notify upstream to get them fixed
[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: yast2-devtools-3.1.30-0.1.fc23.noarch.rpm
yast2-devtools-3.1.30-0.1.fc23.src.rpm
yast2-devtools.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
yast2-devtools.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/pkgconfig/yast2-devtools.pc
yast2-devtools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary y2tool
yast2-devtools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary y2m
yast2-devtools.src:164: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/YaST2/*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
---> No real errors.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires
--------
yast2-devtools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/bash
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/libtool
/usr/bin/perl
/usr/bin/pkg-config
/usr/bin/ruby
/usr/bin/xsltproc
automake
cmake
docbook-style-xsl
doxygen
filesystem
gettext
perl(English)
perl(File::Basename)
perl(File::Find)
perl(Getopt::Long)
perl(Getopt::Std)
perl(IO::File)
perl(POSIX)
perl(Pod::Usage)
perl(XML::Writer)
perl(sigtrap)
perl(strict)
perl(vars)
redhat-rpm-config
rubygem(redcarpet)
rubygem(yard)
Provides
--------
yast2-devtools:
pkgconfig(yast2-devtools)
yast2-devtools
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/yast/yast-devtools/archive/yast-devtools/master/3.1.30.tar.gz#/yast2-devtools-3.1.30.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
e823f778236cd4b4fa060f26260df73051ce83647c80b97cef7380f4bae57ca5
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
e823f778236cd4b4fa060f26260df73051ce83647c80b97cef7380f4bae57ca5
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: yast-devtools-yast-devtools-
master-3.1.30/configure.ac:149
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1218749
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
===== Solution =====
APPROVED
--
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