https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850512 Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer <misc@xxxxxxxx> --- Ok so the package is good. I would recommend to improve a little bit the description for someone who do not know what is fedmsg and so on ( ie, someone thinking that would be a generalist plugin may be disappointed ), but that's nit picking, so the package is approved. I didn't test it toroughly but as you are the upstream, i guess you take care of that. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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 [-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: 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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [-]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Issues: ======= Rpmlint ------- Checking: supybot-fedmsg-0.0.4-2.fc17.src.rpm supybot-fedmsg-0.0.4-2.fc17.noarch.rpm supybot-fedmsg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment supybot-fedmsg.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- supybot-fedmsg-0.0.4-2.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fedmsg python(abi) = 2.7 supybot supybot-meetbot Provides -------- supybot-fedmsg-0.0.4-2.fc17.noarch.rpm: supybot-fedmsg = 0.0.4-2.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/supybot-fedmsg/supybot-fedmsg-0.0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7848a120a7c54501b701e5ef20d11f629b160017517e79b5d51f2669397639a4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7848a120a7c54501b701e5ef20d11f629b160017517e79b5d51f2669397639a4 Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (a5c4ced) last change: 2012-07-22 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 850512 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