Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957529 --- Comment #1 from Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola@xxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked when required Note: icons in solaar See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache The file %{_datadir}/icons/%{name}.png should be in %{_datadir}/pixmaps/, not in %{_datadir}/icons/. ===== 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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines [~]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. - lib/solaar/ui/action.py implicitly defines GPLv2, and so does setup.py. - However, no license headers are included in the source code, and no verbal specification of the license exists either. - Please ask upstream to add a proper license definition. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). - You are mixing %{name} and solaar in %files. Please choose a convention and stick to it. [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. - I don't think that the R: pygtk2 is warranted. The upstream web page just states that the GUI uses gtk3. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: update-desktop-database is invoked when required [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 665600 bytes in 12 files. - The doc/ directory needs to be branched into a separate package. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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. [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). Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: solaar-0.8.7-1.fc18.noarch.rpm solaar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unpair -> unpaid, unfair, unpaired solaar.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/solaar-0.8.7/COPYING solaar.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary solaar solaar.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary solaar-cli 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Please report the FSF address issue upstream. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint solaar solaar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unpair -> unpaid, unfair, unpaired solaar.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/solaar-0.8.7/COPYING solaar.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary solaar solaar.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary solaar-cli 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- solaar (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python pygtk2 python(abi) python-pyudev unifying-receiver-udev Provides -------- solaar: solaar MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/pwr/Solaar/archive/0.8.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e0e167134c6a689574f0f248cba99bc212f930916b2dfffcdeda0c9294e0d167 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e0e167134c6a689574f0f248cba99bc212f930916b2dfffcdeda0c9294e0d167 -- 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=YjghRf2DcD&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review