https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326301
Neil Horman <nhorman(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(tomasz.kantecki@i
| |ntel.com)
--- Comment #3 from Neil Horman <nhorman(a)redhat.com> ---
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
===== 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.
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.
[!]: 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.
<NH>
Need to include the License file
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/nhorman/1326301
-intel-cmt-cat/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
<NH> see above about including LICENSE
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in intel-
cmt-cat-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[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.
Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.2.17 starting (python version = 3.4.3)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
Mock Version: 1.2.17
INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.17
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/nhorman/1326301-intel-cmt-cat/results/intel-cmt-cat-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/1326301-intel-cmt-cat/results/intel-cmt-cat-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/1326301-intel-cmt-cat/results/intel-cmt-cat-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
# /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
--releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install
/home/nhorman/1326301-intel-cmt-cat/results/intel-cmt-cat-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/1326301-intel-cmt-cat/results/intel-cmt-cat-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
/home/nhorman/1326301-intel-cmt-cat/results/intel-cmt-cat-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: intel-cmt-cat-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
intel-cmt-cat-debuginfo-0.1.4-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
intel-cmt-cat-0.1.4-1.fc25.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires
--------
intel-cmt-cat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
intel-cmt-cat-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
intel-cmt-cat:
intel-cmt-cat
intel-cmt-cat(x86-64)
intel-cmt-cat-debuginfo:
intel-cmt-cat-debuginfo
intel-cmt-cat-debuginfo(x86-64)
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/01org/intel-cmt-cat/archive/v0.1.4.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
28be33719c1600ce70858ad24a57c5bd13340e7fd8023a456eae83e1887d5c2e
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
28be33719c1600ce70858ad24a57c5bd13340e7fd8023a456eae83e1887d5c2e
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1326301
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
I think you're pretty close to go, fix the license issue and we should be good
to go!
--
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