https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870496 Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Initial results. Only negative is that the %install begins with: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT but should not according to the fedora-review utility. However, I don't see a supporting entry in the Fedora package review checklist on the wiki. I don't consider that a blocker, so I'll go ahead an approve the package. If it IS an issue, please remove the line. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [?]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [?]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mcpierce/Packaging/review/870496-binwalk/licensecheck.txt Manually verified that files' prologs mention the MIT license. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. ===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (binwalk-0.4.5.tar.gz) [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. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4629843 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. No %check section, but there are no tests included in the code. [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: binwalk-0.4.5-1.fc17.src.rpm binwalk-0.4.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm binwalk-debuginfo-0.4.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm binwalk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmagic -> lib magic, lib-magic, magical binwalk.src:2: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 2) binwalk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmagic -> lib magic, lib-magic, magical binwalk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binwalk 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint binwalk binwalk-debuginfo binwalk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmagic -> lib magic, lib-magic, magical binwalk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary binwalk 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- binwalk-0.4.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libmagic.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) binwalk-debuginfo-0.4.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- binwalk-0.4.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: binwalk = 0.4.5-1.fc17 binwalk(x86-64) = 0.4.5-1.fc17 binwalk-debuginfo-0.4.5-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm: binwalk-debuginfo = 0.4.5-1.fc17 binwalk-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.4.5-1.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://binwalk.googlecode.com/files/binwalk-0.4.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0797173ef20f581e7573976c70e4b2575656d56b482a9392a8795714436da2f0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0797173ef20f581e7573976c70e4b2575656d56b482a9392a8795714436da2f0 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24 Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 870496 -m fedora-17-x86_64 -- 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