Bug 865371
| Summary: | Review Request: scid - A collection of numerical routines using Blas/Lapack | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | MERCIER Jonathan <bioinfornatics> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <kryzhev> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | bioinfornatics, e, i, josdekloe, kryzhev, sebhtml, susi.lehtola |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-03-22 10:15:38 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
MERCIER Jonathan
2012-10-11 09:52:19 UTC
Your srpm and spec file seem no longer available. Could you make them available again please? yes sorry they just move to a subdirectory http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/packages/scid.spec http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/packages/scid-1-0.20120429git51236f3.fc17.1.src.rpm *This is not a formal review because I am not sponsored yet. Small mispelling / erreur d'ortographe: > SciD est une collection de fonction numériques et de lien écrit enet pour le de lien écrit en et pour le > Summary: It is a hcollection of numerical routines for D language collection >. /build lib %{_d_optflags} & > pid_list=( "${pid_list[@]}" "${!}") Is it useful to start process in background and then wait for them to finish ? Builds fine with mock. rpmlint throws a few warnings: $ rpmlint scid.spec scid.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: scid-20120429git51236f3.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint scid-*.rpm scid.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr_FR scid.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.1.0.0 scid.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.1.0.0 exit.5 scid.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.1.0.0 exit@@GLIBC_2.2.5 scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) hcollection -> collection, h collection, collectible scid-devel.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr scid-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. $ rpmlint scid scid-devel scid.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr_FR scid.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.1.0.0 scid.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.1.0.0 __data_start scid.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.1.0.0 _Dmain scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.1.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1 scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2 scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.1.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 scid.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.1.0.0 exit.5 scid.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.1.0.0 exit@@GLIBC_2.2.5 scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) hcollection -> collection, h collection, collectible scid-devel.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr scid-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Oh sorry, this request is complety get out of my mind Would you like to continue packaging? yes i was a little busy and now i need to do some work before to put again a rspms . I think i will provides one saturday. Really sorry i do it on my free time i wait upstream for an enhancement https://github.com/kyllingstad/scid/pull/9 I hope he will use it that will help us a little Hi good news that should to be ok \o/ http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/packages/scid-0.1-0.20130803gita54db09.fc19.2.src.rpm http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/packages/scid.spec $ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/scid-* scid.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.1.0 scid.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.1.0 exit.5 scid-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. about unstripped that because the way to strip do not works for D program $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/scid-0.1-0.20130803gita54db09.fc19.2.src.rpm scid.src: W: invalid-url Source0: scid-20130803gita54db09.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint ../SPECS/scid.spec ../SPECS/scid.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: scid-20130803gita54db09.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. thanks for the review Summary: It is a collection of numerical routines for D language Summary(fr): Est une collection de routine pour le calcul numérique pour le langage D %package devel Summary: It is a collection of numerical routines for D language Summary(fr): Est une collection de routine pour le calcul numérique pour le langage D Avoid using "it is" or "scid is", it's superfluous. Also, use the plural because there are more than one routine. So: Summary: A collection of numerical routines for D language Summary(fr): Une collection de routines pour le calcul numérique pour le langage D %package devel Summary: A collection of numerical routines for D language Summary(fr): Une collection de routines pour le calcul numérique pour le langage D Any news from this? (In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #11) > Any news from this? What do you mean? (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #12) > (In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #11) > > Any news from this? > > What do you mean? You assigned the review to yourself, and there's not been any progress since then. (In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #13) > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #12) > > (In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #11) > > > Any news from this? > > > > What do you mean? > > You assigned the review to yourself, and there's not been any progress since > then. What? You'd better figure out who is absent first. Then you will understand it figures. I see srpm and spec here, no "needinfo" flags, not any requests. And no review (review flag set to "?" in 2013-12-23 with no actual review). Christopher, please, me too is who not understand. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-July/201139.html I won't review this until Mercier has addressed the issue mentioned by Susi. "Fri Jul 18 13:38:29 UTC 2014"? *Sigh* Anyway, right, waiting for respond. SRPMS: http://www.bioinfornatics.eu/packages/scid-20150909gitccdc560.tar.xz SPEC: http://www.bioinfornatics.eu/packages/scid.spec PATCH: http://www.bioinfornatics.eu/packages/scid_install_header.patch Note ldc had some critical bug and i was not able anymore to build this package. Now all is fixed. we can to continue the review was wrong link to SRPMS SRPMS: http://www.bioinfornatics.eu/packages/scid-0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc22.3.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.bioinfornatics.eu/packages/scid.spec PATCH: http://www.bioinfornatics.eu/packages/scid_install_header.patch Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/geany,
/usr/share/geany/tags
[x]: %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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
The D compiler don not build yet on fedora arm thus we can not build this package on arm yet
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 491520 bytes in 67 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 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 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]: 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 scid-
devel
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: 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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: scid-0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc22.3.x86_64.rpm
scid-devel-0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc22.3.x86_64.rpm
scid-0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc22.3.src.rpm
scid.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr
scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language
scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language
scid.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-0.20150909gitccdc560.3 ['0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc22.3', '0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.3']
scid.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
scid.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 exit.5
scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language
scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language
scid-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
scid-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
scid.src: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language
scid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language
scid.src: W: invalid-url Source0: scid-20150909gitccdc560.tar.xz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
scid-devel.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr
scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language
scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language
scid-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
scid-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language
scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language
scid.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-0.20150909gitccdc560.3 ['0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc22.3', '0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.3']
scid.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libblas.so.3
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libgfortran.so.3
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
scid.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 exit.5
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings.
Requires
--------
scid-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
ldc-druntime-devel
ldc-phobos-devel
libscid-ldc.so.0()(64bit)
scid(x86-64)
scid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
lapack
ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
libblas.so.3()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libdruntime-ldc.so.66()(64bit)
libgfortran.so.3()(64bit)
liblapack.so.3()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libphobos2-ldc.so.66()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
scid-devel:
pkgconfig(scid)
scid-devel
scid-devel(x86-64)
scid:
libscid-ldc.so.0()(64bit)
scid
scid(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 865371
Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Package Review
==============
Issues.
Must be fixed:
1. Latest Changelog version is for 0.1 and current version is 0.3.
2. First Changelog entry is for version 1. Misspell?
3. Script to obtain upstream should be fixed. Your script is for lates available version. Must be: packed version.
4. Summary and Description for -devel should represent -devel package.
5. Anowned dirs: /usr/share/geany and /usr/share/geany/tags. May be split-out that geany file and make it Require: geany?
Should be fixed:
1. shared-lib-calls-exit from libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
2. unstripped-binary-or-object libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0. Is it normal for D libraris?
3. /usr/share/doc/scid is already processed in %{doc} macros. You could drop %{_defaultdocdir}/scid.
4. Requires: lapack -- is not neccessary. It would be pulled by auto-requires: liblapack.so.3
5. ldc already require ldc-druntime-devel and ldc-phobos-devel. If there is a reason to left them - good, otherwise they should be removed.
6. The same as for 5, but for -devel.
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: 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.
[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.
[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.
[!]: 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 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]: Dist tag is present.
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: 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.
[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: scid-0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc23.3.x86_64.rpm
scid-devel-0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc23.3.x86_64.rpm
scid-0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc23.3.src.rpm
scid.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found fr
scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language
scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language
scid.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-0.20150909gitccdc560.3 ['0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc23.3', '0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.3']
scid.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
scid.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 exit.5
scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language
scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language
scid-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
scid-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
scid.src: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language
scid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language
scid.src: W: invalid-url Source0: scid-20150909gitccdc560.tar.xz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: Нет такого файла или каталога
scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language
scid-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language
scid-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
scid-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(fr) langage -> language
scid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l fr langage -> language
scid.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-0.20150909gitccdc560.3 ['0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.fc23.3', '0.3-0.20150909gitccdc560.3']
scid.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libblas.so.3
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libgfortran.so.3
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/librt.so.1
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libdl.so.2
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0
scid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
scid.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libscid-ldc.so.0.3.0 exit.5
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings.
Requires
--------
scid-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
ldc-druntime-devel
ldc-phobos-devel
libscid-ldc.so.0()(64bit)
scid(x86-64)
scid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
lapack
ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
libblas.so.3()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libdruntime-ldc.so.67()(64bit)
libgfortran.so.3()(64bit)
liblapack.so.3()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libphobos2-ldc.so.67()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
scid-devel:
pkgconfig(scid)
scid-devel
scid-devel(x86-64)
scid:
libscid-ldc.so.0()(64bit)
scid
scid(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 865371
Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
This review is stalled. Anybody could feel free to make new review request. Don't forget to mark this one as DUPLICATE. |