https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818401 --- Comment #41 from Miroslav Suchý <msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx> --- 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) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [!]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in non-devel package (fix or explain):0ad-0.0.11-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm : /usr/lib64/0ad/libAtlasUI.so 0ad-0.0.11-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm : /usr/lib64/0ad/libCollada.so But this can be waived as no one but only this package will use this .so files. ==== 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. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. Yes, and documented in comments before Source0 [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. desktop-file-validate is used, which is allowed. [-]: 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. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: 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", "BSD (2 clause) GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/msuchy/818401-0ad/licensecheck.txt [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: MUST If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: 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. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [!]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. /usr/share/0ad is owned by both 0ad and 0ad-data. But I do not see problem here. [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. I compared tar.xz in src.rpm and downloaded tar.xz striped from directories according comments in spec and diff is empty [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]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [!]: 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). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. Yes, it works. And pretty fine. I lost 30 minutes of review just on this point :) [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [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 Package contains no bundled libraries. Can you please ellaborate on AtlasUI and libCollada? At least in collada case: http://collada.org/mediawiki/index.php/FCollada it seems to me that is should be packed separately. But I maybe wrong. [!]: MUST If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Please document which part is license under what license. You may very probably copy it from Debian license file. Or maybe just point to LICENSE.txt, but there are those annonying "Various" [!]: 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. Please ask upstream to include BSD, MIT and IBM license. [!]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. You may use install -p to achive this. -- 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