3:02 a.m.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851820
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> ---
Since you've done everything, I suggest we reverse roles.
Adding the pkgconfig dependency might be a good idea, but up to you.
scratch build is here:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5069386
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
* Overridden by MinGW guidelines
$ rpmlint mingw-eigen3.spec mingw-eigen3-3.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm
mingw32-eigen3-3.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm mingw64-eigen3-3.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw-eigen3.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: eigen-3.1.2.tar.bz2
mingw-eigen3.src: W: invalid-license MPL2
mingw-eigen3.src: W: invalid-url Source0: eigen-3.1.2.tar.bz2
mingw32-eigen3.noarch: W: invalid-license MPL2
mingw32-eigen3.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/eigen3/Eigen/src/SparseCore/SparseAssign.h
mingw64-eigen3.noarch: W: invalid-license MPL2
mingw64-eigen3.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/eigen3/Eigen/src/SparseCore/SparseAssign.h
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.
[!] MPL2 should be replaced by MPLv2.0 (see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses)
[!] SparseAssign.h should IMO be removed, it does not seem to serve any
purpose, has never been non-zero in upstream hg repository, and has since been
removed
The invalid-url warning can be ignored (native eigen3) does the same thing. You
might however update the version number in the # Source file comment.
[+] Files are installed in /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw,
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem, mingw64-filesystem is in the .spec file
[+] Requires are OK
[+] BuildArch: noarch
[+] No man pages or info files
[+] default strip and objdump commands are overridden with mingw specific ones
[+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[!] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. See above, the correct tag would be MPLv2.0
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
$ md5sum eigen-3.1.2.tar.bz2 3.1.2.tar.bz2
e9c081360dde5e7dcb8eba3c8430fde2 eigen-3.1.2.tar.bz2
e9c081360dde5e7dcb8eba3c8430fde2 3.1.2.tar.bz2
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
[/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[*] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
[/] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[/] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[*] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[*] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[*] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[/] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for
details.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[/] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[/] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See
MockTricks for details on how to do this.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[/] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[/] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[/] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[/] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
--
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=BaNZQ48oAO&a=cc_unsubscribe