Spec URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/libXpresent/libXpresent.spec SRPM URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/libXpresent/libXpresent-1.0.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: This package contains header files and documentation for the Present extension. Library and server implementations are separate. Fedora Account System Username: kevin
- License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license - Why you use 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' ? - AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libXpresent-1.0.0/configure.ac:47 See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools I'm not sure if it's fixed by autoconf. - libXpresent.i686: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib/libXpresent.so.1.0.0 libXpresent.so.1 This seems to me another false positive related to a supposed bug of 'fedora-review' (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1253917). The warning does not appear if i use rpmlint directly on uninstalled/installed RPMs. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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. [x]: 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)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1222226-libXpresent/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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 [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 4 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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). [ ]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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: [?]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: libXpresent-1.0.0-1.fc24.i686.rpm libXpresent-devel-1.0.0-1.fc24.i686.rpm libXpresent-1.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libXpresent-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc24.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory libXpresent.i686: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib/libXpresent.so.1.0.0 libXpresent.so.1 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- libXpresent-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libXpresent(x86-32) libXpresent.so.1 pkgconfig(presentproto) pkgconfig(x11) pkgconfig(xproto) libXpresent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libX11.so.6 libc.so.6 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libXpresent-devel: libXpresent-devel libXpresent-devel(x86-32) pkgconfig(xpresent) libXpresent: libXpresent libXpresent(x86-32) libXpresent.so.1 Source checksums ---------------- http://xorg.freedesktop.org/archive/individual/lib/libXpresent-1.0.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c11ae015141a9afbe10f4f2b8ee00b11adca6373dc1b9808d7c6c138b2da7b8a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c11ae015141a9afbe10f4f2b8ee00b11adca6373dc1b9808d7c6c138b2da7b8a AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libXpresent-1.0.0/configure.ac:47 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1222226 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 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
Thanks much for the review! (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1) > - License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license Indeed. fixed. > > - Why you use 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' ? I used rpmdev-newspec to make the initial spec and it adds one. It's harmless, but I can remove it if you like. > - AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found > ------------------------------ > AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libXpresent-1.0.0/configure.ac:47 > > See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools > > I'm not sure if it's fixed by autoconf. It seems to be cosmetic/not causing any issues currently, but I can let upstream know. > > - libXpresent.i686: W: private-shared-object-provides > /usr/lib/libXpresent.so.1.0.0 libXpresent.so.1 > > This seems to me another false positive related to a supposed bug of > 'fedora-review' > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1253917). > > The warning does not appear if i use rpmlint directly on > uninstalled/installed RPMs. Yep Updated package: Spec URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/libXpresent/libXpresent.spec SRPM URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/libXpresent/libXpresent-1.0.0-2.fc24.src.rpm
Package approved.
Thanks. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libXpresent Short Description: A Xlib compatible API for the Present extension Upstream URL: http://www.x.org Owners: kevin Branches: f21 f22 f23 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
libXpresent-1.0.0-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15374
libXpresent-1.0.0-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15375
libXpresent-1.0.0-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update libXpresent'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15375
libXpresent-1.0.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update libXpresent'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15374
libXpresent-1.0.0-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libXpresent-1.0.0-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.