https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2386078 Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or MIT License". 158 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora- packaging/reviews/clipper2/2386078-clipper2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/clipper2(polyclipping2-devel), /usr/lib64/cmake/clipper2(polyclipping2-devel) [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: clipper2-static. [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 8220 bytes in 2 files. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in clipper2-static [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: clipper2-1.5.4-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm clipper2-devel-1.5.4-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm clipper2-static-1.5.4-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm clipper2-doc-1.5.4-1.fc43.noarch.rpm clipper2-1.5.4-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpm8o_ioix')] checks: 32, packages: 5 clipper2-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libClipper2Zutils.a clipper2-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libClipper2utils.a clipper2-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 29 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: clipper2-debuginfo-1.5.4-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpmcxhi_g6')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 12 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 5 clipper2-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libClipper2Zutils.a clipper2-static.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/libClipper2utils.a clipper2-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 39 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.8 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/AngusJohnson/Clipper2/archive/Clipper2_1.5.4.tar.gz#/clipper2-1.5.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9d8a35a29d04cd1b7b45f542c0ba48015feece1210036ea9e4efaad3140af4b0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9d8a35a29d04cd1b7b45f542c0ba48015feece1210036ea9e4efaad3140af4b0 Requires -------- clipper2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) clipper2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config clipper2(x86-64) cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libClipper2.so.1()(64bit) libClipper2Z.so.1()(64bit) clipper2-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): clipper2-devel(x86-64) clipper2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- clipper2: clipper2 clipper2(x86-64) libClipper2.so.1()(64bit) libClipper2Z.so.1()(64bit) clipper2-devel: clipper2-devel clipper2-devel(x86-64) cmake(Clipper2) cmake(clipper2) pkgconfig(Clipper2) pkgconfig(Clipper2Z) clipper2-static: clipper2-static clipper2-static(x86-64) clipper2-doc: clipper2-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2386078 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, R, PHP, Python, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, Perl, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #2) > (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #1) > > > Comments: > > a) Please make a separate static sub-package > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static- > > libraries > > > Fixed. I will update the dependency on manifold package which requires it. Thanks. > > > > b) Consider adding %forgemeta macro and using %forgesource and %forgesetup > > macros > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > > #_using_forges_hosted_revision_control > > Both %forgesoure and %forgesetup are useless due to the way upstream set up > the source tarball. Ok. > > > > c) Please add he first part of the soname to the shared library listings > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shared_libraries > > > Fixed by adding "1{,*}" for both soname files Thanks. > > > d) Please remove > > # Install license to standard location > > install -D -m 644 LICENSE -t %{buildroot}%{_licensedir}/%{name} > > and replace > > %license %{_licensedir}/%{name}/LICENSE > > by > > %license LICENSE > > > Dpme. > Thanks. > > e) Consider adding > > %doc README.md > > to the main package > > > Included for both main and devel subpackages. > Thanks. Only needed for main package as the devel package requires the main package. > > f) Why not build the documentation and run the tests by default? > > Documentation can be > > shipped in a subpackage, so one does not need to install it if one does not > > want to. > > > Documentation built fine but the run tests failed upstream. It is possible to run the non failing tests: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=135635010 Consider modifying the check section to %if %{with tests} %check # Skip failing test # https://github.com/AngusJohnson/Clipper2/issues/1001 %ctest -E "TestMultiplePolygons" \ --test-dir %{_vpath_builddir} # Out-of-source test directory %endif see https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/manual/ctest.1.html#run-tests https://discourse.cmake.org/t/how-to-skip-test/1582 It is not compulsory to run tests, but maybe helpful to catch problems with the Fedora build. > > > g) Some of the tests fail: > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=135599414 > > Reported upstream, https://github.com/AngusJohnson/Clipper2/issues/1001 > > Maybe disable the failing tests for now, but run the other tests. > > > > > Test disabled by default. > > h) Keep description lines to at most 80 characters in width. > > Fixed by limiting the lines at 80 characters. Thanks. Approved. Review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2383783 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2385917 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2386164 would be appreciated if possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2386078 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202386078%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
