https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759823
Rich Mattes richmattes@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |richmattes@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Rich Mattes richmattes@gmail.com --- I don't think the issue was that c++ template header libraries aren't allowed, I think the contention is just that you should add a Provides: libkdtree++-static to the -devel package. We do the same thing with eigen2, eigen3, etc. That way dependent packages can Require: libkdtree++-static, which implies that any dependent packages will need to be rebuilt when libkdtree++ is upgraded.
That being said, I'll go ahead and take this review on.
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [-]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in non-devel package (fix or explain):libkdtree++-python-0.7.0-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm : /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_kdtree.so
==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. -- Artistic 2.0 OK [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [!]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [!]: MUST Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5) Note: Only applicable for EL-5 [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [!]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SHOULD The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: libkdtree++-devel-0.7.0-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm libkdtree++-examples-0.7.0-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm libkdtree++-0.7.0-2.fc17.src.rpm libkdtree++-python-0.7.0-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm libkdtree++-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kd -> ks, k, d libkdtree++-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kd -> ks, k, d libkdtree++-examples.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libkdtree -> treelike libkdtree++-examples.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libkdtree -> treelike libkdtree++.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kd -> ks, k, d libkdtree++.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kd -> ks, k, d libkdtree++.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{optflags} libkdtree++-python.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libkdtree -> treelike libkdtree++-python.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libkdtree -> treelike libkdtree++-python.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_kdtree.so libkdtree++-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libkdtree++-examples libkdtree++-examples.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libkdtree -> treelike libkdtree++-examples.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libkdtree -> treelike 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- libkdtree++-devel-0.7.0-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
libkdtree++-examples-0.7.0-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libkdtree++-python-0.7.0-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi) = 2.7
Provides -------- libkdtree++-devel-0.7.0-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
libkdtree++-devel = 0.7.0-2.fc17 libkdtree++-devel(x86-64) = 0.7.0-2.fc17 pkgconfig(libkdtree++) = 0.7.0
libkdtree++-examples-0.7.0-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
libkdtree++-examples = 0.7.0-2.fc17 libkdtree++-examples(x86-64) = 0.7.0-2.fc17
libkdtree++-python-0.7.0-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
libkdtree++-python = 0.7.0-2.fc17 libkdtree++-python(x86-64) = 0.7.0-2.fc17
MD5-sum check ------------- http://alioth.debian.org/frs/download.php/2702/libkdtree++-0.7.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b8c4dfd42a418f62558564f0f7798d3a0db86ee7d034210db27864705351a3e7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b8c4dfd42a418f62558564f0f7798d3a0db86ee7d034210db27864705351a3e7
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n libkdtree++ External plugins:
==================
So the package mostly checks out. Action items are: MUST: All packages must either contian COPYING, or depend on a package that provides COPYING. You should have libkdtree++-examples depend on libkdtree++-devel, and perhaps include COPYING as %doc in libkdtree++-python Ref: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licen...
MUST: Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5) If you don't want to support epel5, don't worry about this.
MUST: The python library is being installed with 0644 permissions instead of 0755 permissions. That's why it's not getting stripped by rpmbuild; you should install executables and shared libraries with 755 permissions. When you fix this, you'll probably start getting rpmlint errors about provides outside of libdir, you can fix it with the directions at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFilter...
SHOULD: The -devel and -examples folders aren't architecture dependent, you should probably add BuildArch: noarch to both subpackages, and move libdir/pkgconfig to datadir/pkgconfig (the -noarch pkgconfig installation destiation)
SHOULD: Patches should be submitted upstream where applicable, and a note should appear in the comments above the patch in the specfile. In particular, the gcc 4.7 patch and pkgconfig patch may be of interest to upstream.
SHOULD: Provide libkdtree++-static