https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110 --- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros - Please, move following lines under %install section sed -i '/^prefix/c\prefix = %{buildroot}%{_prefix}' foma/Makefile sed -i '/^libdir/c\libdir = %{buildroot}%{_libdir}' foma/Makefile - License file is installed by base package only. 'foma' and 'libfoma-devel' require 'libfoma', 'COPYING' and 'README' files can be provided by 'libfoma' only. - Libraries and binary files are "No Full Relro" Binary files are "No PIE" Please, fix compiler/linker flags according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages - Fix the 'unused-direct-shlib-dependency' warnings https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues?rd=PackageMaintainer... ===== 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1357110-foma/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %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. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libfoma , foma-debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: foma-0.9.18-0.1.git0fa48db.fc25.i686.rpm libfoma-0.9.18-0.1.git0fa48db.fc25.i686.rpm libfoma-devel-0.9.18-0.1.git0fa48db.fc25.i686.rpm foma-debuginfo-0.9.18-0.1.git0fa48db.fc25.i686.rpm foma-0.9.18-0.1.git0fa48db.fc25.src.rpm foma.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automata -> automate, automaton, automatism foma.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xfst -> fist foma.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flookup foma.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cgflookup foma.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary foma libfoma.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) foma -> foam, fora, coma libfoma.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Foma -> Coma, Foam, Fora libfoma.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automata -> automate, automaton, automatism libfoma.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US foma -> foam, fora, coma libfoma.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xfst -> fist libfoma.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libfoma.so.0.9.18 exit(a)GLIBC_2.0 libfoma.i686: W: no-documentation libfoma-devel.i686: W: no-documentation foma.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automata -> automate, automaton, automatism foma.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xfst -> fist foma.src:64: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build sed -i '/^prefix/c\prefix = %{buildroot}%{_prefix}' foma/Makefile foma.src:65: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build sed -i '/^libdir/c\libdir = %{buildroot}%{_libdir}' foma/Makefile 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: foma-debuginfo-0.9.18-0.1.git0fa48db.fc25.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- foma.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automata -> automate, automaton, automatic foma.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xfst -> fist foma.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary foma foma.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flookup foma.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cgflookup libfoma.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) foma -> foam, fora, coma libfoma.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Foma -> Coma, Foam, Fora libfoma.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automata -> automate, automaton, automatic libfoma.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US foma -> foam, fora, coma libfoma.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xfst -> fist libfoma.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libfoma.so.0.9.18 /lib/libreadline.so.6 libfoma.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libfoma.so.0.9.18 /lib/libtinfo.so.6 libfoma.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libfoma.so.0.9.18 exit(a)GLIBC_2.0 libfoma.i686: W: no-documentation libfoma-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings. Requires -------- foma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6 libfoma(x86-32) libreadline.so.6 libtinfo.so.6 libz.so.1 libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.2.3) rtld(GNU_HASH) libfoma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6 libreadline.so.6 libtinfo.so.6 libz.so.1 libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.2.3) rtld(GNU_HASH) libfoma-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libfoma(x86-32) libfoma.so.0 foma-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- foma: foma foma(x86-32) libfoma: libfoma libfoma(x86-32) libfoma.so.0 libfoma-devel: libfoma-devel libfoma-devel(x86-32) foma-debuginfo: foma-debuginfo foma-debuginfo(x86-32) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mhulden/foma/archive/0fa48dbacfe39509577ae6741054be7c0... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f0c15f2338865ec515ee0cf8b460bc22fad3e7bdbd84a430c1be25889bd9673c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f0c15f2338865ec515ee0cf8b460bc22fad3e7bdbd84a430c1be25889bd9673c Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1357110 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110 Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2016-09-06 12:13:28 -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110 Ville-Pekka Vainio <vpvainio(a)iki.fi&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW CC| |anto.trande(a)gmail.com Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) | Resolution|WONTFIX |--- Whiteboard|AwaitingSubmitter | Flags| |needinfo?(anto.trande@gmail | |.com) Keywords| |Reopened --- Comment #3 from Ville-Pekka Vainio <vpvainio(a)iki.fi&gt; --- Reopening the report. Antonio, are you still interested in reviewing this one? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110 Ville-Pekka Vainio <vpvainio(a)iki.fi&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(anto.trande@gmail | |.com) | --- Comment #5 from Ville-Pekka Vainio <vpvainio(a)iki.fi&gt; --- - ldconfig calls removed, I only plan to have this in F28+ - soname globbing removed - I used %{build_ldflags} as per https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/master/f/buildf... - Had some linking issues when working on the changes, but maybe I just had a typo in the spec, the package seems to link now. SPEC: https://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/foma-2018/foma.spec SRPM: https://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/foma-2018/foma-0.9.18-0.1.git0fa48d... -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110 --- Comment #7 from Ville-Pekka Vainio <vpvainio(a)iki.fi&gt; --- Thank you, Robert-André! I've had a few busy weeks, I plan on finishing the packaging next weekend. -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110 --- Comment #8 from Ville-Pekka Vainio <vpvainio(a)iki.fi&gt; --- SPEC: https://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/foma-2018/foma.spec SRPM: https://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/foma-2018/foma-0.9.18-0.1.20150613g... I used the git commit date as the snapshot date, I think it's more informative to the users of the package. Will request the git module and branches now. -- 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