https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846481 Lameire Alexis <alexisis-pristontale@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alexisis-pristontale@hotmai | |l.com --- Comment #1 from Lameire Alexis <alexisis-pristontale@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [?]: MUST Package contains no static executables. need verbose logging [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [!]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Note : GPLv2, GPLv3 detected and LGPL, some obscure file is bad detected, can you confirm that file is unused into fedore. In this case you must also retar the archive without the non free files. [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. The compilation is not verbose, you can export the VERBOSE=1 or pass it to make to tell cmake to be more verbose on compil time [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 Package contains no bundled libraries. libmaia is bundeled and compiled, you must patch the CMakelist to don't use it and remove it befere compile time [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 [!]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. same issue as licence contant, but you must remove file relative to ffmpeg build. [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. [x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [!]: MUST Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. you must folow the desktop guidelines and update the ican database : (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database) [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [?]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines must enable verbose compiling message. [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. [!]: 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 patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GENERATED FILE", "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "UNKNOWN", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2)", "*No copyright* GENERATED FILE", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)" For detailed [X]: 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. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) [X]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [X]: 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. [-]: 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). [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 / 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. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines [!]: MUST Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.22 starting... State Changed: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled State Changed: start Mock Version: 1.1.22 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.22 State Changed: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/alexises/846481-cantata/results/cantata-0.8.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm /home/alexises/846481-cantata/results/cantata-debuginfo-0.8.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/root/', 'install', '/home/alexises/846481-cantata/results/cantata-0.8.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm', '/home/alexises/846481-cantata/results/cantata-debuginfo-0.8.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] Erreur : Paquet : cantata-0.8.2-1.fc17.x86_64 (/cantata-0.8.2-1.fc17.x86_64) Requiert : mpd Vous pouvez essayer d'utiliser --skip-broken pour contourner le problème Vous pouvez essayer d'exécuter : rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Rpmlint ------- Checking: cantata-0.8.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm cantata-debuginfo-0.8.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm cantata-0.8.2-1.fc17.src.rpm cantata.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US cantata.x86_64: W: no-documentation cantata.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cantata cantata.src:20: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 20) cantata.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://cantata.googlecode.com/files/cantata-0.8.2.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Foundi (not an error ;)) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint cantata cantata-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name cantata (none): E: no installed packages by name cantata-debuginfo 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- cantata-0.8.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtDBus.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libQtSvg.so.4()(64bit) libQtWebKit.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libkdecore.so.5()(64bit) libkdeui.so.5()(64bit) libkdewebkit.so.5()(64bit) libkio.so.5()(64bit) libkparts.so.4()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmtp.so.9()(64bit) libnepomuk.so.4()(64bit) libnepomukutils.so.4()(64bit) libphonon.so.4()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libsolid.so.4()(64bit) libsoprano.so.4()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtag.so.1()(64bit) mpd perl(File::stat) perl(IO::Socket::INET) perl(POSIX) rtld(GNU_HASH) cantata-debuginfo-0.8.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- cantata-0.8.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: cantata = 0.8.2-1.fc17 cantata(x86-64) = 0.8.2-1.fc17 cantata-debuginfo-0.8.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: cantata-debuginfo = 0.8.2-1.fc17 cantata-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.8.2-1.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://cantata.googlecode.com/files/cantata-0.8.2.tar.bz2 : MD5SUM this package : 9bda49f1083820582723353f566268f3 MD5SUM upstream package : 9bda49f1083820582723353f566268f3 Others ------ mpd look logicly not be needed, if you wish to connect to a mpd server located outside the client pc. this repport whas generated semi automaticaly with fedora repo and in this case all error are not refferenced into the issue section. If you would like to see it you must read all the file. -- 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