Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785312 Jos de Kloe <josdekloe@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Jos de Kloe <josdekloe@xxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for your new version, and your explanations. My review: Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [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 ==>I take this 'present but not required' response of the fedora-review tool as a warning only [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [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. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 6 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [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 [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Uses parallel make. ==>the automatic fedora-review check complains here, but since there is just a single assembly file being compiled here, doing things in parallel doesn't make sense at all, so this is not applicable. [?]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed ==>is this EPEL5 specific? [?]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required ==>is this EPEL5 specific? [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. ==>This should item: "All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment" is missing in your spec file. If you think it is not usefull to submit the patch upstream, could you please explain. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. ==>it is recommended to add the '-p' flag to the install command [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: e3-2.8-3.fc17.x86_64.rpm e3.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pico -> pic, picot, pics e3.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nedit -> edit, n edit e3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pico -> pic, picot, pics e3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nedit -> edit, n edit e3.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/e3 e3.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/e3-2.8/COPYING.GPL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint e3 e3.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pico -> pic, picot, pics e3.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nedit -> edit, n edit e3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pico -> pic, picot, pics e3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nedit -> edit, n edit e3.x86_64: W: ldd-failed /usr/bin/e3 e3.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/e3 e3.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/e3-2.8/COPYING.GPL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' So concluding: no new rpmlint issues, and existing issues are explained. All MUST items are fine. Still 4 SHOULD items that I would like an answer to, but they are not important enough to hold approval for the package. Therefore 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=sYTwKmaHH1&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review