https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865691 Eduardo Echeverria <echevemaster@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |echevemaster@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Eduardo Echeverria <echevemaster@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji Build Rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4588734 Koji Build F18 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4588736 Koji Build F17 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4588738 Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [x]: %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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [-]: 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/laditools/865691-laditools/licensecheck.txt [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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]: CheckResultdir [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. Python: [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: 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]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (laditools-1.0.1.tar.bz2) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: laditools-1.0.1-4.fc17.noarch.rpm laditools-1.0.1-4.fc17.src.rpm laditools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce laditools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ladish -> laddish, radish, latish laditools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US softwares -> software, software's, soft wares laditools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary g15ladi laditools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ladi-player laditools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ladi-system-tray laditools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wmladi laditools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ladi-system-log laditools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ladi-control-center laditools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce laditools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ladish -> laddish, radish, latish laditools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US softwares -> software, software's, soft wares 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint laditools laditools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce laditools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ladish -> laddish, radish, latish laditools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US softwares -> software, software's, soft wares laditools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary g15ladi laditools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ladi-player laditools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ladi-system-tray laditools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wmladi laditools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ladi-system-log laditools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ladi-control-center 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- laditools-1.0.1-4.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python a2jmidid jack-audio-connection-kit-dbus python(abi) = 2.7 python-enum Provides -------- laditools-1.0.1-4.fc17.noarch.rpm: laditools = 1.0.1-4.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- https://launchpad.net/laditools/1.0/1.0.1/+download/laditools-1.0.1.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4a4e2bdfbe90f5d555bbff691f21c5fa928dc8c880ebf22ab865e5eb1913e6a4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4a4e2bdfbe90f5d555bbff691f21c5fa928dc8c880ebf22ab865e5eb1913e6a4 I find no MIT license in the source, check if the package is only MIT and GPLv3 or only GPLv3 Only that, and the package will be approved Best Regards -- 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