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=787293 --- Comment #6 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-12 09:07:14 EST --- Sorry for such delay. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [!]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. $ licensecheck -r * | fgrep -v 'GPL (v3 or later)' ltmain.sh: GPL (v2 or later) SparkleLib/AssemblyInfo.cs: *No copyright* UNKNOWN SparkleShare/SparkleOptions.cs: MIT/X11 (BSD like) SparkleShare/Mac/Growl.framework/Headers/GrowlDefines.h: *No copyright* UNKNOWN SparkleShare/Mac/Growl.framework/Headers/GrowlApplicationBridge.h: UNKNOWN SparkleShare/Mac/Growl.framework/Headers/Growl.h: *No copyright* UNKNOWN SparkleShare/Mac/Growl.framework/Headers/GrowlApplicationBridge-Carbon.h: *No copyright* Public domain SparkleShare/Mac/Growl.framework/Versions/A/Headers/GrowlDefines.h: *No copyright* UNKNOWN SparkleShare/Mac/Growl.framework/Versions/A/Headers/GrowlApplicationBridge.h: UNKNOWN SparkleShare/Mac/Growl.framework/Versions/A/Headers/Growl.h: *No copyright* UNKNOWN SparkleShare/Mac/Growl.framework/Versions/A/Headers/GrowlApplicationBridge-Carbon.h: *No copyright* Public domain SparkleShare/Mac/Growl.framework/Versions/Current/Headers/GrowlDefines.h: *No copyright* UNKNOWN SparkleShare/Mac/Growl.framework/Versions/Current/Headers/GrowlApplicationBridge.h: UNKNOWN SparkleShare/Mac/Growl.framework/Versions/Current/Headers/Growl.h: *No copyright* UNKNOWN SparkleShare/Mac/Growl.framework/Versions/Current/Headers/GrowlApplicationBridge-Carbon.h: *No copyright* Public domain SparkleShare/Mac/MainMenu.xib.designer.cs: *No copyright* GENERATED FILE SparkleShare/SparkleSetup.cs: UNKNOWN SparkleShare/SparkleEntry.cs: UNKNOWN ltmain.sh is part of libtool and bundling does not allowed. Do you known why these files have different license or does not licensed on anything manner? [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 As It is not build on EPEL-5 due to the missing ndesk-dbus-devel dependency (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3783802) I assume it is not targeted for EPEL-5. Please remove such legacy things or ensure it is built on EPEL-5. [!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. See comment above about libtool. It must be removed in %prep. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [!]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files -f %{name}.lang section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop- file-install file if it is a GUI application. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [x]: MUST 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. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST The spec file handles locales properly. Guidelines say http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files what BuildRequires: gettext needed. But I'm doubt it is really needed. [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). For what you include: %global debug_package %{nil} ? I think it should be removed. Or just add comment about purposes. You free to use or not macroses in URL, but please do not mix and chose one of: Source0: https://github.com/downloads/hbons/SparkleShare/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Source0: https://github.com/downloads/hbons/SparkleShare/sparkleshare-0.8.0.tar.gz [x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint sparkleshare-0.8.0-1.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint sparkleshare-0.8.0-1.fc18.i686.rpm sparkleshare.i686: E: no-binary sparkleshare.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sparkleshare.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/sparkleshare-0.8.0/LICENSE sparkleshare.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/sparkleshare-0.8.0/NEWS sparkleshare.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/sparkleshare-0.8.0/AUTHORS 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Permissions must be fixed. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/pasha/SOFT/Review/sparkleshare/787293/sparkleshare-0.8.0.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : e529adb83ae9ddba68c4b13c3823e2fc MD5SUM upstream package : e529adb83ae9ddba68c4b13c3823e2fc [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [-]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [+]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files -f %{name}.lang section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint sparkleshare-0.8.0-1.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint sparkleshare-0.8.0-1.fc18.i686.rpm sparkleshare.i686: E: no-binary sparkleshare.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sparkleshare.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/sparkleshare-0.8.0/LICENSE sparkleshare.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/sparkleshare-0.8.0/NEWS sparkleshare.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/sparkleshare-0.8.0/AUTHORS 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2 External plugins: -- 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