Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/meson.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/meson-0.22.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Meson is a build system designed to optimize programmer productivity. It aims to do this by providing simple, out-of-the-box support for modern software development tools and practices, such as unit tests, coverage reports, Valgrind, CCache and the like. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
Hi Igor! There are three errors from rpmlint: Checking: meson-0.22.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm meson-0.22.0-1.fc22.src.rpm meson.x86_64: E: no-binary meson.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/meson/mparser.py 0644L /usr/bin/python3 meson.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/meson/dependencies.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries for more. Cheers, Flo
> meson.x86_64: E: no-binary don't know why it's happening. i have 3 binaries in /usr/bin/ New SPEC: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/meson.spec New SRPM: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/meson-0.22.0-2.fc22.src.rpm
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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 164 files have unknown license. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. ---> Nothing to build [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. [-]: 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. [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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8703062 [-]: %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]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1187840 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: meson-0.22.0-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm meson-0.22.0-2.fc22.src.rpm meson.x86_64: E: no-binary 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. ---> looks like this is a false positive. So it is not an issue Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- meson (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env python3-qt5 Provides -------- meson: meson meson(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jpakkane/meson/archive/0.22.0/meson-0.22.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : da50922fd3a652dfdc7eb85cdad7c0b8b8aaf52a72dfa8d4a3d2aeade2b4552b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : da50922fd3a652dfdc7eb85cdad7c0b8b8aaf52a72dfa8d4a3d2aeade2b4552b Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1184381 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG ===== Solution ===== APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: meson Short Description: High productivity build system Upstream URL: https://jpakkane.github.io/meson/ Owners: ignatenkobrain Branches: f21 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
meson-0.22.0-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/meson-0.22.0-3.fc21
meson-0.22.0-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
(In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #3) > meson.x86_64: E: no-binary > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. > > ---> looks like this is a false positive. So it is not an issue It's not. Note that the message is about *binaries*, not executables. $ rpmlint -I no-binary no-binary: The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain any binaries. Looks to me indeed that the package should be noarch. Also, an unrelated thing: meson-0.22.0-4.git.c6dbf98 does not follow the guidelines for snapshot naming: missing snapshot date and there's an extra dot after "git". http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
Package meson-0.22.0-5.gitc6dbf98.fc21: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing meson-0.22.0-5.gitc6dbf98.fc21' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2428/meson-0.22.0-5.gitc6dbf98.fc21 then log in and leave karma (feedback).