Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863796 Pete Travis <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx | |) | Flags| |fedora-review+ Flags| |fedora_requires_release_not | |e+ --- Comment #21 from Pete Travis <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. x -- No licensing issues. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. x -- No compiler flag issues. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries. x -- No bundled libraries. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. x -- Changelog is properly formatted [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. x -- No permissibility issues. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. - -- No macros in summary, descriptions [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 - -- No development files [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. x -- No directory conflicts [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. x -- Only apropriate files in %doc [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. - -- No arch issues. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package -n plater, %package common, %package -n pronterface, %package -n pronsole - -- noarch packages; dependencies are appropriately declared. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines x -- [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/863796-printrun/licensecheck.txt x -- Undeclared individual files are inheriting license of project [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. - -- No upstream license files; please raise the issue upstream [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. x -- Spec file is not translating, no errors. [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). x -- [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. x -- No name issues. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) x -- No Conflicts. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. x -- FHS Compliant. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. - -- not applicable [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. x -- No directory conflicts. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. x -- No file conflicts. [!]: Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) x -- Depends on other package recently reviewed; tested to install properly when dependencies are available. [ ]: Package is not relocatable. x -- [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. x -- Requires are correct and trimmed. [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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. x -- [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. - -- Not required [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 256000 bytes in 20 files. - -- not required. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [ ]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find sources under BUILD (using prebuilt sources?) - -- No binaries, just an egg-defined dir in site-packages. [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. x -- [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. x -- Package does provide egg info [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python x -- ===== 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) [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. - -- No license files included, you should query upstream [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: 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 -- [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. x -- Filed and cited. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source2 (pronterface.desktop) Source3 (plater.desktop) Source1 (pronsole.desktop) [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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed x -- rpmlint only complains about spelling of subpackage names. Package does build. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. I see no issues here. Thanks for your contribution, Miro! This package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=E4oPAVnWD3&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review