Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959720 --- Comment #1 from Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola@xxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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 [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. ** It's rather odd that every single source file states that the license is GPLv2+, but the readme states that "PulseView is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), version 3 or later. While some individual source code files are licensed under the GPLv2+, and some files are licensed under the GPLv3+, this doesn't change the fact that the program as a whole is licensed under the terms of the GPLv3+ (e.g. also due to the fact that it links against GPLv3+ libraries)." This is clearly in error. Maybe contact upstream and ask them to change this? Also, specify in the spec file that the license comes from README. ** [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). - You are mixing %{name} and pulseview in %files. Choose one and stick with 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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked when required Note: icons in pulseview [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [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]: 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]: 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. [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Uses parallel make. [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: pulseview-0.1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm pulseview.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sigrok -> grokking pulseview.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multimeters -> altimeters, millimeters, muleteers pulseview.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sigrok -> grokking 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. These are OK. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint pulseview pulseview.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sigrok -> grokking pulseview.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multimeters -> altimeters, millimeters, muleteers pulseview.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sigrok -> grokking 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Same here. Requires -------- pulseview (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libboost_system-mt.so.1.53.0()(64bit) libboost_thread-mt.so.1.53.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libsigrok.so.1()(64bit) libsigrokdecode.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- pulseview: pulseview pulseview(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.sigrok.org/download/source/pulseview/pulseview-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fa44e60a1a861dd730434a3f21b28ca0b7999d54f38576c9b8dbc766437a064a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fa44e60a1a861dd730434a3f21b28ca0b7999d54f38576c9b8dbc766437a064a *** Final comments: I think you're abusing wildcards for no reason in %{_mandir}/man*/* Since this is only a single file, please replace this by %{_mandir}/man1/pulseview.1* You're also missing a comment for SOURCE1: what's it for, where is it from and has it been sent upstream? -- 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=5BYTUwQhWX&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review