https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835170 --- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> --- Ok, since it cannot install du to the file conflict, I defer the test once the spec is corrected. In the mean time : 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. ==== 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. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [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 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. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [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 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. [!]: 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/835170-cgdcbxd/licensecheck.txt [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: 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. [!]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [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. [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 SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (jrfastab-cgdcbxd-v1.0.1-0-g87bd754.tar.gz) [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. [-]: 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 Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros [!]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names ) [!]: 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 Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 Rpmlint ------- Checking: cgdcbxd-1.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm cgdcbxd-debuginfo-1.0.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm cgdcbxd-1.0.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm cgdcbxd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mangement -> management, arrangement, derangement cgdcbxd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dcb -> dc, db, deb cgdcbxd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dcbx -> dc bx, dc-bx, dc cgdcbxd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prio -> pro, prion, prior cgdcbxd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cgroup -> croup, group, c group cgdcbxd.src:31: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib/systemd/system/irqbalance.service cgdcbxd.src:37: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/systemd/system/irqbalance.service cgdcbxd.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jrfastab-cgdcbxd-v1.0.1-0-g87bd754.tar.gz cgdcbxd.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libcgroup cgdcbxd.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libmnl cgdcbxd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mangement -> management, arrangement, derangement cgdcbxd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dcb -> dc, db, deb cgdcbxd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dcbx -> dc bx, dc-bx, dc cgdcbxd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prio -> pro, prion, prior cgdcbxd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cgroup -> croup, group, c group 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- cgdcbxd-debuginfo-1.0.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cgdcbxd-1.0.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcgroup libcgroup.so.1()(64bit) libcgroup.so.1(CGROUP_0.32)(64bit) libcgroup.so.1(CGROUP_0.32.1)(64bit) libcgroup.so.1(CGROUP_0.34)(64bit) libmnl libmnl.so.0()(64bit) libmnl.so.0(LIBMNL_1.0)(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- cgdcbxd-debuginfo-1.0.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: cgdcbxd-debuginfo = 1.0.1-1.fc17 cgdcbxd-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.0.1-1.fc17 cgdcbxd-1.0.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: cgdcbxd = 1.0.1-1.fc17 cgdcbxd(x86-64) = 1.0.1-1.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (a5c4ced) last change: 2012-07-22 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 835170 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