https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841199 Jan Vcelak <jvcelak@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #1 from Jan Vcelak <jvcelak@xxxxxxxxxx> --- 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 Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: MUST Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [x]: 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. [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. but incorrect FSF address, please, resolve with upstream [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. [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 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]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present [x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: 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. Cannot check this, I do not have appropriate HW. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [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 ------ [!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Please, provide some comment to the attached patch. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pyobd-0.9.2.2-1.fc16.src.rpm pyobd-0.9.2.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm pyobd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) scantool -> scan tool, scan-tool, scantly pyobd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scantool -> scan tool, scan-tool, scantly pyobd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) scantool -> scan tool, scan-tool, scantly pyobd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scantool -> scan tool, scan-tool, scantly pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyobd/obd_io.py pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/pyobd pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyobd/debugEvent.py pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyobd/obd2_codes.py pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyobd/obd_sensors.py pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/pyobd-0.9.2.2/COPYING pyobd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyobd 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- pyobd-0.9.2.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/env pyserial python(abi) = 2.7 wxPython Provides -------- pyobd-0.9.2.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm: pyobd = 0.9.2.2-1.fc16 MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.obdtester.com/download/pyobd_0.9.2-2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3edb646d2ab70c0ae0fab526d115f969422e20b681762dba1b83abda37aa95f0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3edb646d2ab70c0ae0fab526d115f969422e20b681762dba1b83abda37aa95f0 Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 841199 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