https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755510 --- Comment #31 from Jeff Peeler <jpeeler@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Will follow up with the source github url in another comment. It does appear that I was wrong about find -exec simplifying the translations, so do as you please. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== 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. [-]: 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 [?]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. NOTE: the versioning may change based on github url changes. [X]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [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 [X]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [X]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [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 Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-]: 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 The spec file handles locales properly. [X]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (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 Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [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 Package installs properly. (trusting you here) [X]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. NOTE: is python3-gobject necessary? I have the extension installed on my system and that package is not installed. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 systemd file(s) if in need. [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. NOTE: license in README.md. [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. [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. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0 (paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet_fix_gnome- shell_version_required.patch) Patch1 (paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system- monitor-applet_fix_gettext_domain.patch) Source0 (paradoxxxzero-gnome- shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-123-g3117df5.tar.gz) [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. [?]: 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: see [!] and NOTES. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git3117df5.fc17.noarch.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git3117df5.fc17.src.rpm gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-123-g3117df5.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git3117df5.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gnome-shell >= 3.4.0 python python3-gobject Provides -------- gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-0.1.git3117df5.fc17.noarch.rpm: gnome-shell-extension-system-monitor-applet = 2.0b1-0.1.git3117df5.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- Using local file /home/jpeeler/reviews/paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-123-g3117df5.tar.gz as upstream file:///home/jpeeler/reviews/paradoxxxzero-gnome-shell-system-monitor-applet-2.0b1-123-g3117df5.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 5d0ae1c9b6bb9b3392751d65b80aacad MD5SUM upstream package : 5d0ae1c9b6bb9b3392751d65b80aacad Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 755510 -- 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