Spec URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/rendercheck.spec SRPM URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/rendercheck-1.4-1.0.20140402GIT2fd8151.fc21.src.rpm Description: Tests a Render extension implementation against separate calculations of expected output. Fedora Account System Username: mcepl
I can take this.
Sorry for the delayed review. Please see detailed review below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: 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. ---> Source tarball has the file COPYING which is not included under %doc. Please fix. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1083721-rendercheck/licensecheck.txt ---> This seems fine to me. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed ---> EL 5 support? If not, please consider modernizing the spec. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. ---> s390 and s390x [!]: 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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [?]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required ---> perhaps modernize the spec? [-]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [x]: %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]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rendercheck-1.4-1.0.20140402GIT2fd8151.fc21.x86_64.rpm rendercheck-1.4-1.0.20140402GIT2fd8151.fc21.src.rpm rendercheck.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4-1.0.20140402GIT2fd8151.el7 ['1:1.4-1.0.20140402GIT2fd8151.fc21', '1:1.4-1.0.20140402GIT2fd8151'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rendercheck rendercheck.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4-1.0.20140402GIT2fd8151.el7 ['1:1.4-1.0.20140402GIT2fd8151.fc21', '1:1.4-1.0.20140402GIT2fd8151'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rendercheck (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXrender.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- rendercheck: rendercheck rendercheck(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/rendercheck/snapshot/rendercheck-2fd815135e7769aa9dd0d3b8cb558350ba7eb70d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3c5d5edd627980a1c14b7dfa2d147810fbb6bd90229ca8d024b055caedab395d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5da1ce21fdd78b5dca0c9ee117cfd5f13af9fb3489b9df56f76ba22f686b4216 However, diff -r shows no differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1083721 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
koji scratch builds - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6792369
Updated SPEC file: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/rendercheck.spec Updated SRPM: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/rendercheck-1.4-1.0.2.20140402GIT589bb58.el7.src.rpm
All good here now! Package Approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: rendercheck Short Description: Tool to verify correct operation of the XRENDER extension Owners: mcepl Branches: el6 epel7 f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6794922
rendercheck-1.4-1.0.2.20140402GIT589bb58.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rendercheck-1.4-1.0.2.20140402GIT589bb58.el6
rendercheck-1.4-1.0.2.20140402GIT589bb58.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rendercheck-1.4-1.0.2.20140402GIT589bb58.fc20
rendercheck-1.4-1.0.2.20140402GIT589bb58.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
rendercheck-1.4-1.0.2.20140402GIT589bb58.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.