Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338 --- Comment #19 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hopefully this comment catches all issues: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines 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 must be included in %doc.[4 MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text A complicated %prep section makes access to local %doc files more complicated, btw. > [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)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /tmp/894338-libdistorm3/licensecheck.txt > License: GPLv3 GPLv3+ actually. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. It doesn't. > [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. Since %install automatically empties %buildroot, there is no need to "rm -fr %{buildroot}%{_libdir}" either. > [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Not yet. > Summary: diStorm This is a very bad summary. The summary should be a short and concise description of the package. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#summary > [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Debatable. There is nothing that mandates adding the "lib" prefix or appending the "3". Upstream name is just "distorm". OpenSUSE have packaged it differently, just for reference: http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=distorm > [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. It bears a risk though to install a very generic file name, such "mnemonics.h", directly into /usr/include instead of placing files like that in a subdir. $ rpmls -p libdistorm3-devel-3.3-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/distorm.h -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/mnemonics.h > [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q > --requires). Not yet. There still is no SONAME: libdistorm.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libdistorm3.so.3.3 And what the spec file tries to do about that in the %install section doesn't make sense and doesn't result in sane RPM dependencies either. > [x]: Package functions as described. Dubious. Without a libdistorm3.so it's somewhat inconvenient to compile/link with this library. Has it been tested? > [!]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. This '!' seems to be fedora-review's warning that the summary is not English language, but just the name of this software. -- 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=SRNisQpGZB&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review