https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847901 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> --- So, here's what fedora-review says: 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) [ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: 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: 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. [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 Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [ ]: 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. [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. [ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "zlib/libpng" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/kevin/847901-spamprobe/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. [ ]: 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 If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: 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 Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5 [ ]: 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. [ ]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0 (compile-fixes.patch) Patch1 (64bit.patch) Patch2 (example- swapped.patch) [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 Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: 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 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 Rpmlint ------- Checking: spamprobe-1.4d-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm spamprobe-1.4d-2.fc16.src.rpm spamprobe-debuginfo-1.4d-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm spamprobe.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US procmail -> proclaim, procaine spamprobe.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Procmail -> Proclaim, Procaine spamprobe.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/spamprobe.1.gz 610: normal or special character expected (got a node) spamprobe.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US procmail -> proclaim, procaine spamprobe.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Procmail -> Proclaim, Procaine spamprobe.src: W: strange-permission spamprobe-1.4d.tar.gz 0775L spamprobe.src:62: W: macro-in-%changelog %makeinstall 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint spamprobe-debuginfo spamprobe-debuginfo.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- spamprobe-1.4d-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdb-4.8.so()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) spamprobe-debuginfo-1.4d-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- spamprobe-1.4d-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm: spamprobe = 1.4d-2.fc16 spamprobe(x86-64) = 1.4d-2.fc16 spamprobe-debuginfo-1.4d-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm: spamprobe-debuginfo = 1.4d-2.fc16 spamprobe-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.4d-2.fc16 MD5-sum check ------------- http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/spamprobe/spamprobe-1.4d.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 217ce47dcc6f58d8201fbb0a5e2dc38b5b06349fadb1378fb3647ad8a3f44d68 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 217ce47dcc6f58d8201fbb0a5e2dc38b5b06349fadb1378fb3647ad8a3f44d68 Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 847901 External plugins: So, the items I would say should be fixed (although none of them are serious): 1. spamprobe.src:62: W: macro-in-%changelog %makeinstall In rpm spec files you have to use %% to produce a non macro % 2. [!]: 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 Fix those and I think we are in pretty good shape. ;) -- 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