Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913289 Luya Tshimbalanga <luya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |luya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Luya Tshimbalanga <luya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable ===== 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. [x]: 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 listsysted in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries. sRGB.cc should not be bundled because colord already provides it. Perhaps addid colord-devel as build require? [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: 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. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [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 [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. [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 (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/luya/Projects/fedora-package-review/913289-gimp- separate+/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: 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 [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Multiple BuildRoot definitions found [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [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. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (separate+-0.5.8.zip) [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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define gimpver 2.8.0 %define _gimppluginsdir %{_libdir}/gimp/%{gimpver}/plug-ins ===== 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. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gimp-separate+-0.5.8-2.fc18.src.rpm gimp-separate+-debuginfo-0.5.8-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm gimp-separate+-0.5.8-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm gimp-separate+.src:27: W: unversioned-explicit-provides gimp-cmyk gimp-separate+.src:27: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 27) gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/separate-core.c gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/separate-gui.c gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/separate-export.c gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/separate-export.h gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/jpeg.c gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/separate.h gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/psd.c gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/util.h gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/import.c gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/util.c gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/tiff.c gimp-separate+.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gimp-separate+-0.5.8/COPYING 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint gimp-separate+-debuginfo gimp-separate+ gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/separate-core.c gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/separate-gui.c gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/separate-export.c gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/separate-export.h gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/jpeg.c gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/separate.h gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/psd.c gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/util.h gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/import.c gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/util.c gimp-separate+-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/separate+-0.5.8/tiff.c gimp-separate+.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/gimp-separate+-0.5.8/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- gimp-separate+-debuginfo-0.5.8-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gimp-separate+-0.5.8-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gimp >= 2.8.0 libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgimp-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgimpbase-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgimpcolor-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgimpconfig-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgimpmath-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgimpmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgimpui-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgimpwidgets-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) liblcms.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libtiff.so.5()(64bit) libtiff.so.5(LIBTIFF_4.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- gimp-separate+-debuginfo-0.5.8-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm: gimp-separate+-debuginfo = 0.5.8-2.fc18 gimp-separate+-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.5.8-2.fc18 gimp-separate+-0.5.8-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm: gimp-cmyk gimp-separate+ = 0.5.8-2.fc18 gimp-separate+(x86-64) = 0.5.8-2.fc18 MD5-sum check ------------- http://iij.dl.sourceforge.jp/separate-plus/47873/separate+-0.5.8.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9e06b6d777d83439a122e7c13c08e725c49d23f62a09806c392b84948cefdf50 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9e06b6d777d83439a122e7c13c08e725c49d23f62a09806c392b84948cefdf50 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 913289 >From the license review: GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) ---------------------------------------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/separate+-0.5.8/psd.c MIT/X11 (BSD like) ------------------ /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/separate+-0.5.8/srgb_profile.h Unknown or generated -------------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/separate+-0.5.8/iccclassicons.h Could you check which licnese iccclassicons.h use? -- 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=WmQajcYQ0H&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review