Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Texinfo files are properly installed Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in binutils, binutils-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. Note: Archive *.a files found in binutils-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [ ]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Note: See rpmlint output [ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Generic: [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in binutils- devel [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [ ]: 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 %doc. [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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 [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Uses parallel make. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define binutils_target %{_target_platform} %define isnative 1 %define enable_shared 1 %define cross %{binutils_target}- %define isnative 0 %define enable_shared 0 %define gold_arches %ix86 x86_64 %define build_gold both %define build_gold no %define __debug_install_post : > %{_builddir}/%{?buildsubdir}/debugfiles.list %define debug_package %{nil} %define run_testsuite 0%{?_with_testsuite:1} %define run_testsuite 0%{!?_without_testsuite:1} %{!?ld_bfd_priority: %define ld_bfd_priority 50} %{!?ld_gold_priority:%define ld_gold_priority 30} %define _gnu %{nil} %define _target_platform %{_arch}-%{_vendor}-%{_host_os} %define enable_shared 0 [ ]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 8724480 bytes in /usr/share 122880 binutils-devel-2.23.51.0.8-4.fc19.x86_64.rpm 8601600 binutils-2.23.51.0.8-4.fc19.x86_64.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: binutils-2.23.51.0.8-4.fc19.x86_64.rpm binutils-devel-2.23.51.0.8-4.fc19.x86_64.rpm binutils.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbfd-2.23.51.0.8-4.fc19.so _exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 binutils.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbfd-2.23.51.0.8-4.fc19.so exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 binutils.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/ld.bfd ['/usr/lib64'] binutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dwp binutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ld.bfd binutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ld.gold binutils.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm binutils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) opcodes -> op codes, op-codes, codes binutils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opcodes -> op codes, op-codes, codes binutils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US seperate -> separate, desperate, temperate binutils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libelf -> libel, libels, lib elf binutils-devel.x86_64: E: info-files-without-install-info-postin /usr/share/info/bfd.info.gz binutils-devel.x86_64: E: info-files-without-install-info-postun /usr/share/info/bfd.info.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 10 warnings. Requires -------- binutils-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/install-info binutils zlib-devel binutils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /sbin/install-info /sbin/ldconfig /usr/sbin/alternatives coreutils libbfd-2.23.51.0.8-4.fc19.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libopcodes-2.23.51.0.8-4.fc19.so()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- binutils-devel: binutils-devel binutils-devel(x86-64) binutils-static binutils: binutils binutils(x86-64) bundled(libiberty) libbfd-2.23.51.0.8-4.fc19.so()(64bit) libopcodes-2.23.51.0.8-4.fc19.so()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- binutils: /usr/lib64/libbfd-2.23.51.0.8-4.fc19.so binutils: /usr/lib64/libopcodes-2.23.51.0.8-4.fc19.so MD5-sum check ------------- ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/binutils-2.23.51.0.8.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ffc8284e0179362bf6de7a12404cac7686098166034537dde75067dcaa91fbce CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ffc8284e0179362bf6de7a12404cac7686098166034537dde75067dcaa91fbce Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (903b443) last change: 2012-12-20 Buildroot used: fedora-raw-x86_64 Command line :/home/w0rm/work/projects/fedora-review/try-fedora-review -rpn binutils -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -v -x CheckRpmlintInstalled,CheckApprovedLicense,CheckContainsLicenseText,CheckLicenseField,CheckLicenseUpstream,CheckReqPkgConfig,CheckBuildCompleted,CheckPackageInstalls,CheckNoNameConflict,CheckBuild,CheckBuildRequires