Spec URL: http://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/libbtbb/libbtbb.spec SRPM URL: http://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/libbtbb/libbtbb-2014.02.R2-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This is the Bluetooth baseband decoding library, forked from the GR-Bluetooth project. It can be used to extract Bluetooth packet and piconet information from Ubertooth devices as well as GR-Bluetooth/USRP. Fedora Account System Username: jsmith
Please note that I'm willing to swap reviews with someone else if they'd like to swap reviews.
This is an *INFORMAL* package-review. Due to some issues I wouldn't APPROVE so far. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ===== 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. ---> doc-section is empty for the package and it's subpackage [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. ---> package doesn't build properly. For more information see the koji-build [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. ---> These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ [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. ---> Package fails to build on all required archs http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6910896 [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> package doesn't build properly. For more information see the koji-build [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]: 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: [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ---> There is no separated file [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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: 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. ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6910896 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define POSTYEAR 2014, %define POSTMONTH 02, %define POSTNUM 2 [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]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== 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: libbtbb-2014.02.R2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm libbtbb-devel-2014.02.R2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm libbtbb-2014.02.R2-1.fc21.src.rpm libbtbb.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) baseband -> base band, base-band, baseboard libbtbb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US baseband -> base band, base-band, baseboard libbtbb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US piconet -> phonetic libbtbb.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2014-02-R2-1 ['2014.02.R2-1.fc21', '2014.02.R2-1'] libbtbb.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbtbb.so.0.2 exit.5 libbtbb.x86_64: W: no-documentation libbtbb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libbtbb-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary btaptap libbtbb.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) baseband -> base band, base-band, baseboard libbtbb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US baseband -> base band, base-band, baseboard libbtbb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US piconet -> phonetic 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libbtbb-devel libbtbb libbtbb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libbtbb-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary btaptap libbtbb.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) baseband -> base band, base-band, baseboard libbtbb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US baseband -> base band, base-band, baseboard libbtbb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US piconet -> phonetic libbtbb.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2014-02-R2-1 ['2014.02.R2-1.fc21', '2014.02.R2-1'] libbtbb.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libbtbb.so.0.2 /lib64/libpcap.so.1 libbtbb.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbtbb.so.0.2 exit.5 libbtbb.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- libbtbb-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env libbtbb(x86-64) libbtbb.so.0()(64bit) libbtbb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) numpy pyside-tools pyusb rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libbtbb-devel: libbtbb-devel libbtbb-devel(x86-64) libbtbb: libbtbb libbtbb(x86-64) libbtbb.so.0()(64bit) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/greatscottgadgets/libbtbb/archive/2014-02-R2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 96c99b4cd12b098b9abbef1b9942e38c34490d4b27ef1fe7dd9c6058e11dafe6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 96c99b4cd12b098b9abbef1b9942e38c34490d4b27ef1fe7dd9c6058e11dafe6 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 1102795 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
File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libbtbb-2014.02.R2-1.fc21.x86_64/usr/bin/btaptap ---> This file is part of the Python-wrapper around libbtbb… Build fails, because CMAKE cannot find the Python-Interpreter: `-- Could NOT find PythonInterp (missing: PYTHON_EXECUTABLE)` ---> Please add BR: python2-devel and if that isn't enough, append '-DPYTHON_EXECUTABLE="%{__python2}"' to the %%cmake-macro. I'll try another run after you fixed this up…
I decided to restart review on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1570463 Please let me know if this ticket still active *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1570463 ***