Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916023 Ding-Yi Chen <dchen@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |dchen@xxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |dchen@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Ding-Yi Chen <dchen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Output of fedora-review that's relevant: Summary: * Please follow http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html to download GPL ang LGPL documents and put it as upstream zip file. ========================================================== Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames ===== 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. Please follow http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html to download GPL ang LGPL documents and put it as upstream zip file. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [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 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. [!]: 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [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]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== 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. [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}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: 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. [x]: %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. Java: [x]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: zanata-parent-10-1.fc17.noarch.rpm zanata-parent-10-1.fc17.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint zanata-parent 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- zanata-parent-10-1.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils Provides -------- zanata-parent-10-1.fc17.noarch.rpm: mvn(org.zanata:zanata-parent) = 10 zanata-parent = 10-1.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/zanata/zanata-parent/archive/zanata-parent-10.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d335811f7606dd7d50ce4b94451950cadd6b700a44d5b1fba86ded9274566a92 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d335811f7606dd7d50ce4b94451950cadd6b700a44d5b1fba86ded9274566a92 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 916023 -- 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=nDC0Xmr3pM&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review