[Bug 1518713] New: Review Request: guidelines-support-library - Guidelines Support Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1518713
Bug ID: 1518713 Summary: Review Request: guidelines-support-library - Guidelines Support Library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vitaly@easycoding.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://github.com/EasyCoding/guidelines-support-library/raw/master/guidelin... SRPM URL: https://www.easycoding.org/files/fedora/guidelines-support-library-0-1.20171... Description: Header-only Guidelines Support Library. Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1518713
Iwicki Artur fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@svgames.pl
--- Comment #1 from Iwicki Artur fedora@svgames.pl ---
mkdir -p "%{buildroot}%{_includedir}/%{name}/gsl" cp -a include/gsl %{buildroot}%{_includedir}/%{name}
I'm not 100% familiar with the C/C++ include process, but I think that if the library is installed this way, it will require dependent programs to use "#include <guidelines-support-library/gsl/gsl.h>", instead of just "#include <gsl/gsl.h>". Unless that's intentional.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1518713
--- Comment #2 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- No. It will work fine with #include <gsl/gsl.h>.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1518713
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |vascom2@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |vascom2@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- 1. You can remove -p1 from %autosetup because there are no any patch.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* BSL", "Unknown or generated". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/1518713-guidelines-support- library/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: [!]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: guidelines-support-library-devel-0-1.20171014git1c95f94.fc28.noarch.rpm guidelines-support-library-0-1.20171014git1c95f94.fc28.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory guidelines-support-library-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Microsoft/GSL <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/vascom/1518713-guidelines-support-library/srpm/guidelines-support-library.spec 2017-12-01 14:53:15.495202201 +0300 +++ /home/vascom/1518713-guidelines-support-library/srpm-unpacked/guidelines-support-library.spec 2017-11-29 16:52:46.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,5 @@ +# Disable debug package... +%global debug_package %{nil} + # Set Git revision of library... %global commit0 1c95f9436eae69c9b9315911ef6aa210df7d1e31 @@ -19,5 +22,4 @@ %package devel Summary: Development files for %{name} -Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}
%description devel
Requires -------- guidelines-support-library-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- guidelines-support-library-devel: guidelines-support-library-devel
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Microsoft/GSL/archive/1c95f9436eae69c9b9315911ef6aa210df7... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 29127aa8311be2679d2e110a1e27363116923b047f95e55ae0d7b52dffd09d98 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 29127aa8311be2679d2e110a1e27363116923b047f95e55ae0d7b52dffd09d98
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1518713 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1518713
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/guidelines-support-library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1518713
Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2017-12-01 11:26:02
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com