Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fmind/fedora-nim/master/nim.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/fmind/fedora-nim/raw/master/nim-0.17.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: package for the Nim language, follow the authors installation process at https://nim-lang.org/install_unix.html Fedora Account System Username: fmind PS: this is the first time I create a Linux package
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: nim : /usr/lib64/nim/cycle.h nim : /usr/lib64/nim/genode_cpp/syslocks.h nim : /usr/lib64/nim/genode_cpp/threads.h nim : /usr/lib64/nim/nimbase.h nim : /usr/lib64/nim/wrappers/linenoise/linenoise.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - 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 LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)". 6048 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fmind/workspace/my/fedora/nim/review- nim/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/nim, /usr/lib64/nim, /usr/share/nim/doc [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/nim, /usr/lib64/nim, /usr/share/nim/doc [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 1 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nim- debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: nim-0.17.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm nim-debuginfo-0.17.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm nim-0.17.0-1.fc26.src.rpm nim.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Nim nim.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1-1 ['0.17.0-1.fc26', '0.17.0-1'] nim.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nim.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/nim.cfg nim.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/nimdoc.cfg nim.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/nimdoc.tex.cfg nim.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/nim/cycle.h nim.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/nim/genode_cpp/syslocks.h nim.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/nim/genode_cpp/threads.h nim.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/nim/nimbase.h nim.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib64/nim/pure/unidecode/gen.py usr/bin/env python nim.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/nim/pure/unidecode/gen.py 644 usr/bin/env python nim.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/nim/wrappers/linenoise/linenoise.c nim.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/nim/wrappers/linenoise/linenoise.h nim.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nim nim-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources nim.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Nim nim.src: W: invalid-url Source0: nim-0.17.0.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 15 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: nim-debuginfo-0.17.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm nim-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nim-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources nim.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Nim nim.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1-1 ['0.17.0-1.fc26', '0.17.0-1'] nim.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nim.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/nim.cfg nim.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/nimdoc.cfg nim.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/nimdoc.tex.cfg nim.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/nim/cycle.h nim.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/nim/genode_cpp/syslocks.h nim.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/nim/genode_cpp/threads.h nim.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/nim/nimbase.h nim.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib64/nim/pure/unidecode/gen.py usr/bin/env python nim.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/nim/pure/unidecode/gen.py 644 usr/bin/env python nim.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/nim/wrappers/linenoise/linenoise.c nim.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/nim/wrappers/linenoise/linenoise.h nim.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nim 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 13 warnings. Requires -------- nim-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nim (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- nim-debuginfo: nim-debuginfo nim-debuginfo(x86-64) nim: nim nim(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- Using local file /home/fmind/workspace/my/fedora/nim/nim-0.17.0.tar.xz as upstream file:///home/fmind/workspace/my/fedora/nim/nim-0.17.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 36e18dd9384f6c67e6d0199b871b43e774a0af30532698184d6f5a9cc9ac7a9b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 36e18dd9384f6c67e6d0199b871b43e774a0af30532698184d6f5a9cc9ac7a9b Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n nim Buildroot used: fedora-26-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
Since you ran fedora-review yourself, you should probably fix the issues it's giving you, especially separating headers file in a -devel subpackage. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages for detailed explanation on how to do this.
Also, you're not a member of the Fedora Packager group, so you need a sponsor. Please add a Block for FE:NEEDSPONSOR. You should probably introduce yourself on fedora-devel, and do informal reviews of other packages to show to a potential sponsor that you understand the Fedora Packaging Guidelines. The full process is explained here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers