Attachment 949602 Details for Bug 1155826 – Self-review

Self-review

review.txt (text/plain), 9.17 KB, created by Andy Lutomirski on 2014-10-22 23:29:53 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Andy Lutomirski

Created: 2014-10-22 23:29:53 UTC

Size: 9.17 KB

patch

obsolete

>
>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
>
>
>
>===== MUST items =====
>
>C/C++:
>[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
>[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
>[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
>[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:
>[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>     Guidelines.
>[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
>     "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files
>     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>     /home/luto/devel/fedora/libu2f-host/libu2f-host/licensecheck.txt
>[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
>[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
>     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gtk-doc(gnome-
>     desktop3-devel, libgnome-keyring-devel, webkitgtk3-doc, gtk3-devel-docs,
>     gcr-devel, polkit-docs, libgweather-devel, harfbuzz-devel, libsecret-
>     devel, json-glib-devel, libgdata-devel, p11-kit-devel, gtk-doc,
>     libcanberra-devel), /usr/share/gtk-doc/html(gnome-desktop3-devel,
>     libgnome-keyring-devel, webkitgtk3-doc, gtk3-devel-docs, gcr-devel,
>     polkit-docs, libgweather-devel, harfbuzz-devel, libsecret-devel, json-
>     glib-devel, libgdata-devel, p11-kit-devel, gtk-doc, libcanberra-devel)
>[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
>[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
>[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
>[ ]: 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
>[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
>[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
>[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
>[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
>[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
>[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>     Provides are present.
>[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
>[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
>[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
>[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
>[ ]: 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 51200 bytes in 2 files.
>[ ]: 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 %doc.
>[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
>[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.
>[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
>[ ]: Package functions as described.
>[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
>[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
>[ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
>[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
>     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
>[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>     architectures.
>[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
>[ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
>[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
>[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
>[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
>[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
>[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
>
>===== EXTRA items =====
>
>Generic:
>[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.
>
>
>Rpmlint
>-------
>Checking: libu2f-host-0.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
>          u2f-host-0.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
>          libu2f-host-devel-0.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
>          libu2f-host-0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
>libu2f-host.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Yubico -> Rubicon
>libu2f-host-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
>libu2f-host.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Yubico -> Rubicon
>libu2f-host.src:13: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(gnulib)
>4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
>
>
>
>
>Rpmlint (installed packages)
>----------------------------
># rpmlint libu2f-host-devel libu2f-host u2f-host
>libu2f-host-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
>libu2f-host.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Yubico -> Rubicon
>3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
># echo 'rpmlint-done:'
>
>
>
>Requires
>--------
>libu2f-host-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    /usr/bin/pkg-config
>    libu2f-host(x86-64)
>    libu2f-host.so.0()(64bit)
>
>libu2f-host (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    /sbin/ldconfig
>    libc.so.6()(64bit)
>    libhidapi-hidraw.so.0()(64bit)
>    libjson-c.so.2()(64bit)
>    rtld(GNU_HASH)
>
>u2f-host (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    libc.so.6()(64bit)
>    libu2f-host(x86-64)
>    libu2f-host.so.0()(64bit)
>    libu2f-host.so.0(U2F_HOST_0.0)(64bit)
>    rtld(GNU_HASH)
>
>
>
>Provides
>--------
>libu2f-host-devel:
>    libu2f-host-devel
>    libu2f-host-devel(x86-64)
>    pkgconfig(u2f-host)
>
>libu2f-host:
>    bundled(gnulib)
>    libu2f-host
>    libu2f-host(x86-64)
>    libu2f-host.so.0()(64bit)
>    libu2f-host.so.0(U2F_HOST_0.0)(64bit)
>
>u2f-host:
>    u2f-host
>    u2f-host(x86-64)
>
>
>
>Source checksums
>----------------
>http://developers.yubico.com/libu2f-host/releases/libu2f-host-0.0.tar.xz :
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 05e711ff9db74ea73237f05bba2040ecdc0bf165fdeb5b6adf5e1b291a55f20a
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 05e711ff9db74ea73237f05bba2040ecdc0bf165fdeb5b6adf5e1b291a55f20a
>
>
>Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
>Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn /home/luto/rpmbuild/SRPMS/libu2f-host-0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
>Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
>Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
>Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
>Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 1155826: 949602