https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224 --- Comment #21 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Apologies for the delay, here's the review. There are some changes needed still, but the package looks almost ready for approval. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [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 %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop 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 Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 [-]: 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. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking original sources for licenses Licenses found: "zlib/libpng", "UNKNOWN", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/michel/sources/fedora/projects/FedoraReview/src/821224-tntnet/licensecheck.txt - framework/common/gcryptinit.c is GPLv2+, this should be added to the list of licenses (with a comment indicating which file is affected) - framework/common/unzip.h is under the zlib license -- ditto, add it to the list, so this should be e.g.: # GPLv2+: framework/common/gcryptinit.c # zlib: framework/common/unzip.h License: LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ and zlib [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [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 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. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. [x]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [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. Upstream doesn't seem to ship unit tests [!]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Please try and replace invocations of 'install' with 'install -p', both in the spec file and in the Makefile [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking original sources for licenses Licenses found: "zlib/libpng", "UNKNOWN", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/michel/sources/fedora/projects/FedoraReview/src/821224-tntnet/licensecheck.txt - framework/common/gcryptinit.c is GPLv2+, this should be added to the list of licenses (with a comment indicating which file is affected) - framework/common/unzip.h is under the zlib license -- ditto, add it to the list, so this should be e.g.: # GPLv2+: framework/common/gcryptinit.c # zlib: framework/common/unzip.h License: LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+ and zlib [!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Please also upstream the gcc47 fixes and post the tracker URL [!]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Please try and replace invocations of 'install' with 'install -p', both in the spec file and in the Makefile Rpmlint ------- Checking: 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- Provides -------- MD5-sum check ------------- /home/michel/sources/fedora/projects/FedoraReview/src/821224-tntnet/upstream/tntnet-2.1.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : a9c85aa6d624f7f88c48374f28730242 MD5SUM upstream package : a9c85aa6d624f7f88c48374f28730242 Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git External plugins: -- 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