Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757860 Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-28 18:14:59 EST --- REVIEW FOR 55ed39ab549b6cc50d4929d7a4498cc4 kgpg-4.7.80-1.fc16.src.rpm MUST items FIX - MUST: rpmlint output: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/kgpg-* kgpg.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{name} kgpg.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/stable/4.7.80/src/kgpg-4.7.80.tar.bz2 <urlopen error ftp error: 550 Failed to change directory.> kgpg.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/applications/kde4/kgpg.desktop kgpg.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kgpg 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Source URL needs to be fixed, the rest is ok. The desktop files are executable on purpose. The macro-in-comment warning is caused by the commented out URL line; remove if it not going to be used anymore. OK - MUST: package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package in the format %{name}.spec OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+ OK - MUST: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license: GPLv2+ OK - MUST: source package includes the text of the license in its own file and that file is included in %doc OK - MUST: spec file is written in American English OK - MUST: spec file for the package is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL by md5 b3731775d46443d429fccd6e0c9eb0d9 OK - MUST: package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires OK - MUST: spec file handles locales properly using %find_lang N/A - MUST: package (or subpackage) stores shared library files in the dynamic linker's default paths and call ldconfig in %post and %postun OK - MUST: package does not bundle copies of system libraries OK - MUST: package is not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: package owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings OK - MUST: permissions on files are set properly OK - MUST: package consistently use macros OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application N/A - MUST: header files are in -devel package N/A - MUST: static libraries are in -static package N/A - MUST: library files with a suffix are in -devel package N/A - MUST: -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: package does not contain any .la libtool archives OK - MUST: package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file that is properly validated with desktop-file-validate OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK - MUST: all filenames in the package are valid UTF-8 SHOULD items N/A - SHOULD: source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, query upstream to include it N/A - SHOULD: description and summary sections should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available OK - SHOULD: package builds in mock OK - SHOULD: package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures OK - SHOULD: package functions as described OK - SHOULD: scriptlets are sane N/A - SHOULD: subpackages other than devel require the base package using a fully versioned dependency N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files are in -devel package OK - SHOULD: package has no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin N/A - SHOULD: package contains man pages for binaries/scripts OTHER items OK - latest (un)stable version packaged FIX - source URL is invalid: 'stable' should be 'unstable' OK - compiler flags ok OK - debuginfo complete N/A - package contains a pkgconfig(.pc) files and has 'Requires: pkgconfig'. ISSUES - Fix Soure0 URL - Please add a comment to the Patch, the URL of the bug for upstreaming it or the URL of the commit where it was applied. - desktop-file-validate should be in %install not in %check - package requires dbus-launch, but I am not sure there is an indirect dependency on dbus-x11 already. Consider adding a direct one. NOTES - %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} is the same as %setup -q - consider adding a %clean section and a %defattr line for compatibility with older versions of rpm - The license is a mix of GPLv2+ and GPLv3+. This can be summarized under GPLv2+, but IANAL and don't know what the KDE SIG usually does about the "any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V" phrase. Please fix the issues and consider the package APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review