Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962490 --- Comment #8 from Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - License is GPLv3+ (not GPLv2+) - No need for rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install (I'll get that removed from the template) - Let's filter out the provides with: # Exclude .oct files from provides %global __provides_exclude_from ^%{octpkglibdir}/.*\\.oct$ (I'll try to get that into the template) ===== 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. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/octave-dicom-0.1.1/962490-octave- dicom/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: 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. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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]: 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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: octave-dicom-0.1.1-3.fc20.x86_64.rpm octave-dicom.x86_64: W: no-documentation octave-dicom.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/octave/packages/dicom-0.1.1/packinfo/.autoload octave-dicom.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/octave/packages/dicom-0.1.1/packinfo/.autoload octave-dicom.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint octave-dicom octave-dicom.x86_64: W: no-documentation octave-dicom.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/octave/packages/dicom-0.1.1/packinfo/.autoload octave-dicom.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/octave/packages/dicom-0.1.1/packinfo/.autoload octave-dicom.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- octave-dicom (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libcruft.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgdcmCommon.so.2.2()(64bit) libgdcmDICT.so.2.2()(64bit) libgdcmDSED.so.2.2()(64bit) libgdcmIOD.so.2.2()(64bit) libgdcmMSFF.so.2.2()(64bit) libgdcmjpeg12.so.2.2()(64bit) libgdcmjpeg16.so.2.2()(64bit) libgdcmjpeg8.so.2.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) liboctave.so.1()(64bit) liboctinterp.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) octave octave(api) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- octave-dicom: _gendicomdict.oct()(64bit) dicomdict.oct()(64bit) dicominfo.oct()(64bit) dicomlookup.oct()(64bit) dicomread.oct()(64bit) dicomwrite.oct()(64bit) octave-dicom octave-dicom(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/octave/dicom-0.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 692cc509c70e85d94598866190366d0dbc2968bee56fbb998eac940bea62e8fa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 692cc509c70e85d94598866190366d0dbc2968bee56fbb998eac940bea62e8fa Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 962490 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -- 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=JKnxifTUCN&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review