Attachment 604039 Details for Bug 785371 – Review

Review

review.txt (text/plain), 7.78 KB, created by Jeremy Newton on 2012-08-13 16:19:19 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Jeremy Newton

Created: 2012-08-13 16:19:19 UTC

Size: 7.78 KB

patch

obsolete

>
>Package Review
>==============
>
>==== C/C++ ====
>[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
>[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.
>     Private unversioned libs that aren't provided is alright.
>
>==== Generic ====
>[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
>     Note: See rpmlint messages.
>[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.
>[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
>     least one supported primary architecture.
>[x]: 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 Buildroot is not present
>     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
>[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
>[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
>[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
>     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
>     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
>[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
>[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
>[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
>[x]: MUST Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if
>     there is such a file.
>[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
>[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>     Note: Not applicable
>[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.
>[X]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
>     Note: Not applicable
>[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.
>     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
>     "LGPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "GPL (v2 or later) LGPL
>     (v2 or later)", "UNKNOWN", "GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2
>     or later)", "*No copyright* GENERATED FILE" For detailed output of
>     licensecheck see file: /mnt/home/mk/sd/speed-dreams/licensecheck.txt
>[X]: 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: Contains no Conflicts
>[X]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
>[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.
>[X]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
>[X]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
>     Note: See rpmlint messages.
>[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.
>     Note: Not applicable
>[X]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
>[X]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
>[X]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
>[X]: 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.
>[X]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
>     --requires).
>[X]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
>     Note: Seems to work alright without issue.
>[X]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
>[X]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
>     upstream.
>[X]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
>[X]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
>[X]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
>     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
>[?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>     architectures.
>     Note: Only tested on i686 and x86_64
>[-]: 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
>-------
>
>speed-dreams.src: W: invalid-url Source4: speed-dreams-src-unmaintained-2.1.0-trunk-r4810.tar.xz
>speed-dreams.src: W: invalid-url Source3: speed-dreams-src-more-hq-cars-and-tracks-2.1.0-trunk-r4810.tar.xz
>speed-dreams.src: W: invalid-url Source2: speed-dreams-src-hq-cars-and-tracks-2.1.0-trunk-r4810.tar.xz
>speed-dreams.src: W: invalid-url Source1: speed-dreams-src-wip-cars-and-tracks-2.1.0-trunk-r4810.tar.xz
>speed-dreams.src: W: invalid-url Source0: speed-dreams-src-base-2.1.0-trunk-r4810.tar.xz
>
>This is fine because of the commented download instructions.
>
>speed-dreams.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/games/speed-dreams-2/lib/librobottools.so librobottools.so
>speed-dreams.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/games/speed-dreams-2/lib/libraceengine.so libraceengine.so
>speed-dreams.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/games/speed-dreams-2/lib/libtgf.so libtgf.so
>speed-dreams.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/games/speed-dreams-2/lib/libtgfclient.so libtgfclient.so
>speed-dreams.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/games/speed-dreams-2/lib/liblearning.so liblearning.so
>speed-dreams.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/games/speed-dreams-2/lib/libtgfdata.so libtgfdata.so
>speed-dreams.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/games/speed-dreams-2/lib/libnetworking.so libnetworking.so
>
>Private unversioned libs that aren't provided is alright.
>
>speed-dreams.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/games/speed-dreams-2/lib/libtgf.so exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
>speed-dreams.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/games/speed-dreams-2/lib/libtgfclient.so exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
>
>Should be alright: http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/speed-dreams/ticket/603
>
>speed-dreams.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man6/sd2-accc.6.gz 42: a space character is not allowed in an escape name
>
>Not blocking, but should be reported upstream.
>
>speed-dreams-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
>speed-dreams-robots-base.x86_64: W: no-documentation
>
>All documentation is in the main package, so this is fine, as all packages require the main package.
>
>5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 10 warnings.
>
>
>
>***APPROVED***

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 785371: 558188 | 558189 | 558190 | 558191 | 559905 | 560316 | 597314 | 597315 | 602569 | 604039