Spec URL: https://thm.fedorapeople.org/reviews/libtecla/libtecla.spec SRPM URL: https://thm.fedorapeople.org/reviews/libtecla/libtecla-1.6.3-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: The tecla library provides UNIX and LINUX programs with interactive command line editing facilities, similar to those of the UNIX tcsh shell. In addition to simple command-line editing, it supports recall of previously entered command lines, TAB completion of file names or other tokens, and in-line wild-card expansion of filenames. The internal functions which perform file-name completion and wild-card expansion are also available externally for optional use by programs. In addition, the library includes a path-searching module. This allows an application to provide completion and lookup of files located in UNIX style paths. Although not built into the line editor by default, it can easily be called from custom tab-completion callback functions. This was originally conceived for completing the names of executables and providing a way to look up their locations in the user's PATH environment variable, but it can easily be asked to look up and complete other types of files in any list of directories. Fedora Account System Username: thm
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Do you know if Debian has submitted their patches back upstream? [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Have you submitted a Koji scratch build? *Note I'm not an approved packager yet* -- Full 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]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/link/1358917-libtecla/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 194560 bytes in 4 files. [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]: 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: libtecla-static. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libtecla-static , libtecla-debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libtecla-1.6.3-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm libtecla-devel-1.6.3-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm libtecla-static-1.6.3-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm libtecla-debuginfo-1.6.3-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm libtecla-1.6.3-1.fc26.src.rpm libtecla.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tecla -> eclat, clatter libtecla.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcsh -> tosh, tush libtecla.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filenames -> file names, file-names, filaments libtecla.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables -> executable, executable s, executrices libtecla-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libtecla.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tecla -> eclat, clatter libtecla.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcsh -> tosh, tush libtecla.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filenames -> file names, file-names, filaments libtecla.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables -> executable, executable s, executrices 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libtecla-debuginfo-1.6.3-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libtecla.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tecla -> eclat, clatter libtecla.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcsh -> tosh, tush libtecla.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filenames -> file names, file-names, filaments libtecla.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US executables -> executable, executable s, executrices libtecla.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libtecla_r.so.1.6.3 /lib64/libncurses.so.6 libtecla.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libtecla.so.1.6.3 /lib64/libncurses.so.6 libtecla-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Requires -------- libtecla-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libtecla-devel libtecla (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.6()(64bit) libtecla.so.1()(64bit) libtecla.so.1(tecla_1.2)(64bit) libtecla.so.1(tecla_1.4)(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libtecla-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libtecla(x86-64) libtecla.so.1()(64bit) libtecla_r.so.1()(64bit) libtecla-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libtecla-static: libtecla-static libtecla-static(x86-64) libtecla: libtecla libtecla(x86-64) libtecla.so.1()(64bit) libtecla.so.1(tecla_1.2)(64bit) libtecla.so.1(tecla_1.3)(64bit) libtecla.so.1(tecla_1.4)(64bit) libtecla.so.1(tecla_1.6)(64bit) libtecla.so.1(tecla_l.5)(64bit) libtecla_r.so.1()(64bit) libtecla_r.so.1(tecla_1.2)(64bit) libtecla_r.so.1(tecla_1.3)(64bit) libtecla_r.so.1(tecla_1.4)(64bit) libtecla_r.so.1(tecla_1.6)(64bit) libtecla_r.so.1(tecla_l.5)(64bit) libtecla-devel: libtecla-devel libtecla-devel(x86-64) libtecla-debuginfo: libtecla-debuginfo libtecla-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~mcs/tecla/libtecla-1.6.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f2757cc55040859fcf8f59a0b7b26e0184a22bece44ed9568a4534a478c1ee1a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f2757cc55040859fcf8f59a0b7b26e0184a22bece44ed9568a4534a478c1ee1a Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1358917 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
> %files static > %license LICENSE.TERMS > %doc README Since -static requires -devel and -devel requires the base package, there is absolutely no need to duplicate the %license and %doc file in the -static package. > %package static > Summary: Static library for %{name} > Requires: %{name}-devel Preferably this explicit Requires follows these guidelines, too: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
(In reply to Link Dupont from comment #1) > [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. It's not a packaging error — the spec has a comment that parallel build fails. That's sad, but unfortunately it's too often the case that parallel builds are broken. (If this was added in the latest version of the spec file, after you wrote your review, then please just ignore my comment.) > [ ]: Latest version is packaged. This should be easy to check: and indeed, the upstream page says that 1.6.3 is the latest version, so this requirement is satisfied. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. There are scriptlets: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig (and they are "sane", i.e. what the guidelines prescribe.)
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.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.