Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379 --- Comment #3 from T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== Issues ===== [!]: License is listed as "BSD", but no copy of the license is included. The BSD license states: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." In order to comply with this clause of the license, a copy of the license text MUST be included in %doc. You can either work with upstream to include one, or include one yourself. For more information on handling this situation, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [!]: The $PREFIX is hardcoded. You shouldn't need this at all, as it's handled by the %configure macro. If you do need it, please use PREFIX=%{_prefix} instead. [!]: The upstream tarball includes an initscript, but this package does not ship a systemd service. Is the functionality provided by the initscript necessary or desired? [!]: The provided spec file and the spec in the SRPM differ. Please make sure they are identical next time. ===== Things to Consider ==== [ ]: The %files section contains an unnecessary %defattr line. This package does not contain the remaning necessary boilerplate to be supported on RHEL 5, and this line is no longer necessary in modern Fedora. Please consider removing it. [ ]: The summary and description could use some more work. Please consider briefly explaining what TIPC is. ===== 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. [!]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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: "BSD (3 clause)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/patches/FedoraReview/953379-tipcutils/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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. [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. [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. [-]: 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). [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: tipcutils-2.0.5-1.fc20.src.rpm tipcutils-2.0.5-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm tipcutils-debuginfo-2.0.5-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm tipcutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace tipcutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. OK Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint tipcutils-debuginfo tipcutils tipcutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' OK Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora/patches/FedoraReview/953379-tipcutils/srpm/tipcutils.spec 2013-04-19 00:58:31.596004095 -0400 +++ /home/fedora/patches/FedoraReview/953379-tipcutils/srpm-unpacked/tipcutils.spec 2013-04-19 00:58:32.764004350 -0400 @@ -4,5 +4,5 @@ License: BSD URL: http://tipc.sourceforge.net/ -Summary: Utils package required to configure TIPC +Summary: TIPC utilities Source0: http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SOURCES/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Ple Requires -------- tipcutils-2.0.5-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tipcutils-debuginfo-2.0.5-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- tipcutils-2.0.5-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm: tipcutils = 2.0.5-1.fc20 tipcutils(x86-64) = 2.0.5-1.fc20 tipcutils-debuginfo-2.0.5-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm: tipcutils-debuginfo = 2.0.5-1.fc20 tipcutils-debuginfo(x86-64) = 2.0.5-1.fc20 MD5-sum check ------------- http://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SOURCES/tipcutils-2.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1d71acd6d4cfa6f8161cefa27ef89a89bfb9fd968f5467b59afff315a5c26f5e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1d71acd6d4cfa6f8161cefa27ef89a89bfb9fd968f5467b59afff315a5c26f5e Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (f4bc12d) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-vanilla-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b953379 -- 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=gVlPOsfZAr&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review