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=790628 --- Comment #28 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-19 12:05:07 EDT --- It is much better now. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [?]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. Comment bellow. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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 License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Comment bellow. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate 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. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. Comment bellow. [!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /tmp/adobe/asl_1.0.43.tgz : MD5SUM this package : eac9f3eec40ed1f41d1e4671289b5e8b MD5SUM upstream package : 04b18d3b682008146f76fc0dcc19c4c9 [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]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. Very simple functional test passed. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0: http://sourceforge.net/projects/adobe-source/files/adobe- source/%{version}/asl_%{version}.tgz (asl_%{version}.tgz) Source1: adobe- source-libraries.pc (adobe-source-libraries.pc) Patch0: asl-gcc.patch (asl-gcc.patch) Patch1: asl-fedora-build-options.patch (asl-fedora-build- options.patch) [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. [?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Only x86_64 tested. [-]: 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 Rpmlint output is silent. adobe-source-libraries-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > Probably OK adobe-source-libraries-doc.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/adobe-source-libraries-doc-1.0.43/documentation/performance/index.html > Please query upstream about this file, also nice to have: [ -s documentation/performance/index.html ] || rm -f documentation/performance/index.html 6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. [?]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. It seems not to be against the guidelines, but the changelog from example differs: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs So I would prefer not using the space indentation for version-release suffix and also not inserting VIM metadata in the end of SPEC file (# vim: tabstop=4:expandtab). [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is used, according to other vars/macros usage %{buildroot} should be used instead. [!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /tmp/adobe/asl_1.0.43.tgz : MD5SUM this package : eac9f3eec40ed1f41d1e4671289b5e8b MD5SUM upstream package : 04b18d3b682008146f76fc0dcc19c4c9 Both tarballs are OK, but wrong URL is used in sources - it leads to HTML file, not to the archive -> md5sum mismatch Please use sourceforge URL as noted in: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0: http://sourceforge.net/projects/adobe-source/files/adobe- source/%{version}/asl_%{version}.tgz (asl_%{version}.tgz) Source1: adobe- source-libraries.pc (adobe-source-libraries.pc) Patch0: asl-gcc.patch (asl-gcc.patch) Patch1: asl-fedora-build-options.patch (asl-fedora-build- options.patch) Not blocker, nice to have. Other: For adobe-source-libraries-doc package, I would rather see the doc in /usr/share/doc/adobe-source-libraries-1.0.43 directory instead of /usr/share/doc/adobe-source-libraries-doc-1.0.43 Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 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