https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847406 Paul Wouters <pwouters@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Paul Wouters <pwouters@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Confirmed package will be in EL5 You need to add the LICENSE using %doc, since it is present in the source tree With the %doc change done, APPROVED 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. [ ]: 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. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [ ]: 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 [ ]: 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 [ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: 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 [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [ ]: 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [ ]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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: [!]: 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 has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 See: None [!]: 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. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames Rpmlint ------- Checking: clean-extra-utils-0.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm clean-extra-utils-0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm clean-extra-utils.x86_64: E: no-binary clean-extra-utils.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- clean-extra-utils-0.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): clean Provides -------- clean-extra-utils-0.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: clean-extra-utils = 0.1-1.fc17 clean-extra-utils(x86-64) = 0.1-1.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/clean-extra-utils.git/snapshot/clean-extra-utils-0.1.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 84cc9ddb8c3bfd9761d767665c0287dd MD5SUM upstream package : 0a516941f422fee41e2ae0031c25d1d9 However, diff -r shows no differences Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 847406 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