Spec URL: https://myk52348.fedorapeople.org/palo-client-c/0.0.0/palo-client-c.spec SRPM URL: https://myk52348.fedorapeople.org/palo-client-c/0.0.0/palo-client-c-0.0.0-0.fc23.src.rpm Description: c++ client library (libpalo_ng) for accessing the Palo OLAP server and an associated set of header (.h) files for using the c++ library. Palo OLAP server is a cell-oriented, multi-dimensional in-memory OLAP server typically used for analysis and data consolidation. Multi-dimensional data can be queried interactively and written back for further consolidation. The server stores and manipulates data in memory. Fedora Account System Username:myk52348 Thanks and regards, Michael
Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages COMMENT: not sure how to solve this. Since -devel is noarch package including a .so in -devel as suggested by the Packaging guidelines caused the koji build to fail. - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/include/libpalo_ng/Network See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles COMMENT: this issues seems to be incorrectly reported by fedora-review, since Network is not included twice in the .spec ===== 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. 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. [!]: 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)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/myk/rpm-test /review-palo-client-cpp/licensecheck.txt COMMENT: reviewing the detail of licensecheck.txt shows that the actual source is consistently licensed for GPLv2, but various generated and automake files are licensed under other licenses. [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. [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 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/palo/code/molap/server/5.1/palo-client- cpp.tar.gz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags COMMENT: .tar.gz not available upstream; provided by packager; path is location of upstream [X]: 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in palo- client-cpp-devel , palo-client-cpp-debuginfo [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. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments COMMENT: URL is provided. This comment seems incorrect [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: palo-client-cpp-0.0.0-0.fc22.x86_64.rpm palo-client-cpp-devel-0.0.0-0.fc22.noarch.rpm palo-client-cpp-debuginfo-0.0.0-0.fc22.x86_64.rpm palo-client-cpp-0.0.0-0.fc22.src.rpm palo-client-cpp.x86_64: W: no-documentation palo-client-cpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpalo_ng.so COMMENT: As noted above, not sure how to solve this. Since -devel is noarch package including a .so caused the koji build to fail. palo-client-cpp-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation palo-client-cpp.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://svn.code.sf.net/p/palo/code/molap/server/5.1/palo-client-cpp.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found COMMENT: as noted above, the URL is valud and defines the upstream location where the source is provide. .tar.gz provided by packager. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: palo-client-cpp-debuginfo-0.0.0-0.fc22.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- palo-client-cpp.x86_64: W: no-documentation palo-client-cpp.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpalo_ng.so COMMENT: As noted above, not sure how to solve this. Since -devel is noarch package including a .so caused the koji build to fail. palo-client-cpp-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- palo-client-cpp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libboost_regex.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_thread.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libicui18n.so.54()(64bit) libicuuc.so.54()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpalo_ng.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) palo-client-cpp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): palo-client-cpp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- palo-client-cpp: libpalo_ng.so.0()(64bit) palo-client-cpp palo-client-cpp(x86-64) palo-client-cpp-devel: palo-client-cpp-devel palo-client-cpp-debuginfo: palo-client-cpp-debuginfo palo-client-cpp-debuginfo(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- palo-client-cpp: /usr/lib64/libpalo_ng.so Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n palo-client-cpp 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
Spec URL: https://myk52348.fedorapeople.org/palo-client-cpp/0.0.0/palo-client-cpp.spec SRPM URL: https://myk52348.fedorapeople.org/palo-client-cpp/0.0.0/palo-client-cpp-0.0.0-0.fc23.src.rpm Correct the URL to point to the c++ client.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.