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=737972 --- Comment #9 from Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> 2012-03-26 11:40:12 EDT --- 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. [-]: 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: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [!]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: 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 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 is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [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. Note: Licenses found: "UNKNOWN" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/src/737972/licensecheck.txt [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST No %config files under /usr. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [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. rpmlint spacewalk-admin-1.8.2-1.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint spacewalk-admin-1.8.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm spacewalk-admin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rhn-generate-pem.pl spacewalk-admin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rhn-deploy-ca-cert.pl spacewalk-admin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rhn-install-ssl-cert.pl 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: 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. [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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. rpmlint spacewalk-admin-1.8.2-1.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint spacewalk-admin-1.8.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm spacewalk-admin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rhn-generate-pem.pl spacewalk-admin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rhn-deploy-ca-cert.pl spacewalk-admin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rhn-install-ssl-cert.pl 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. It seems the changelog do not have the email, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs The rpmlint are just false positives ( you can add manpages later if you have time, but that's not blocking ). However, the lack of email in changelog is blocking :/ That's the last thing to fix and I can validate the package. -- 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