https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862160 --- Comment #17 from Sebastian Dyroff <fedora@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I made a complete review now, based on valkyrie-2.0.0-5.el6_3.src.rpm. There are two remaining issues, but I am not 100% sure about them. First: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. You moved the html documentation in %doc. It is shown at runtime when you click on Help -> Contents. I think this is not really using it at runtime. If these html files are missing, the Online Documentation will be empty. Second: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. I do not see something like CFLAGS=... in your spec file and I am not familiar with qmake Makefile generation, environment CFLAGS set during build. If the package honors the compiler flags, tell me how it works :-). I also do not know how to check: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. It is only and I marked it with Not evaluated. As above, I would be thankful if someone could enlighten me howto check this. I generated a koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4575518 The full fedora-review output with manual checks: 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. ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. [ ]: 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. [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: 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 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [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. [!]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{valkyrie}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) [!]: 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). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [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. [x]: 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 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: valkyrie-2.0.0-5.fc17.src.rpm valkyrie-2.0.0-5.fc17.x86_64.rpm valkyrie-debuginfo-2.0.0-5.fc17.x86_64.rpm valkyrie.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/valkyrie-2.0.0/COPYING valkyrie.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary valkyrie valkyrie.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/valkyrie-2.0.0/INSTALL 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint valkyrie-debuginfo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- valkyrie-2.0.0-5.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(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) valgrind >= 3.6.0 valkyrie-debuginfo-2.0.0-5.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- valkyrie-2.0.0-5.fc17.x86_64.rpm: valkyrie = 2.0.0-5.fc17 valkyrie(x86-64) = 2.0.0-5.fc17 valkyrie-debuginfo-2.0.0-5.fc17.x86_64.rpm: valkyrie-debuginfo = 2.0.0-5.fc17 valkyrie-debuginfo(x86-64) = 2.0.0-5.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.valgrind.org/downloads/valkyrie-2.0.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a70b9ffb2409c96c263823212b4be6819154eb858825c9a19aad0ae398d59b43 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a70b9ffb2409c96c263823212b4be6819154eb858825c9a19aad0ae398d59b43 Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -r -n valkyrie 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