https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854837 Erik Schilling <ablu.erikschilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ablu.erikschilling@googlema | |il.com --- Comment #9 from Erik Schilling <ablu.erikschilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Hello, I am not sponsered so this is an informal review. If i claim anything wrong please correct me (still learning): Problems (MUST): [!]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. One of your changelog entries has a trailing $. Format should be version-release. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. If the source is dual licensed use "or" instead of "and": https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Dual_Licensing_Scenarios [!]: MUST If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Problems (SHOULD): [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (sozi-release-12.05-08120927.zip) Since this is the way it is released by upstream i think it is ok. But fedora-review complained about it. [!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. According to this list: https://github.com/senshu/Sozi/downloads 12.09 is available Questions: [?]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) Question: Why is Provides: %{pkgname} = %{version}-%{release} needed? [?]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. See question above Not checked: [?]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [?]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Rpmlint ------- Checking: inkscape-sozi-12.05-2.fc17.src.rpm inkscape-sozi-12.05-2.fc17.noarch.rpm inkscape-sozi.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 12.05-08120927-2$ ['12.05-2.fc17', '12.05-2'] inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi_extras_upgrade.inx inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi_extras_addvideo.js inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi.inx inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi_extras_addvideo_upgrade.py inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi.css inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi_extras_addvideo.inx inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi_upgrade.py inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/ extensions/sozi.js 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 1 warnings. I doubt that these files are intended to be runnable / executable. They do not look executable to me. So i do not know why they show up. Can sombody more expirienced clear me up? MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/downloads/senshu/Sozi/sozi-release-12.05-08120927. zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 55b0e1c0351feb3cd6f28e72019f3f93aa02d609cabc7b96b749914bc2b1c24e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 55b0e1c0351feb3cd6f28e72019f3f93aa02d609cabc7b96b749914bc2b1c24e Full review file is uploaded. Best regards, Erik Schilling -- 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