Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904798 --- Comment #8 from T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Resolution: NEEDS WORK ==== Issues ==== [!]: rpmlint output is not clean. See the rpmlint section at the bottom of the review for details. [!]: Fedora-specific launcher scripts do not use `exec`. Please use `exec` so the bash process doesn't stay around forever, or launch in Python like you did with Cura, if possible. ==== Things to Consider ==== [ ]: This is a fork of the 'skeinforge' package in Fedora. While such forks are permissible in Fedora (c.f. LibreOffice, MATE, MariaDB, et. al.), please do consider working with the other upstreams that use skeinforge to instead use this package, if it really does confer benefits. [ ]: No %check section is present. The tarball included does not appear to contain tests, but please do make sure upstream does not provide them seperately. ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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. [x]: 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)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/patches/904798-sfact/licensecheck.txt Seems to be false positive like skeinforge was. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [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 [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ===== 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [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. [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: sfact-0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c68.fc19.noarch.rpm sfact-doc-0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c68.fc19.noarch.rpm sfact-0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c68.fc19.src.rpm sfact.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c688 ['0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c68.fc19', '0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c68'] Please fix. sfact.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sfact sfact.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sfact-craft Consider asking upstream to include a manpage or writing one yourself. sfact.src: W: strange-permission sfact 0755L sfact.src: W: strange-permission sfact-craft 0755L False positive; these should be executable. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint sfact sfact-doc sfact.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c688 ['0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c68.fc19', '0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c68'] sfact.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sfact sfact.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sfact-craft 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' All addressed above. Requires -------- sfact-0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c68.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh /usr/bin/python pypy python(abi) = 2.7 python2 tkinter sfact-doc-0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c68.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sfact = 0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c68.fc19 Provides -------- sfact-0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c68.fc19.noarch.rpm: sfact = 0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c68.fc19 sfact-doc-0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c68.fc19.noarch.rpm: sfact-doc = 0.0-2.20130128gitbc56c68.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/ahmetcemturan/SFACT/archive/bc56c6882269fb14e36bc7bd6582c19be6114c06/sfact-0.0-bc56c68.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f65ea8bebb3cc7f9f1083a123e8339ef37028388c5e2e7e8a9dd39408379715c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f65ea8bebb3cc7f9f1083a123e8339ef37028388c5e2e7e8a9dd39408379715c Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b904798 -- 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=CzkZSJLp5w&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review