Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958358 Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ktdreyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |ktdreyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- TL;DR summary: package is approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. (BSD) [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. [-]: 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 [-]: 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: "ISC". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ktdreyer/fedora- scm/darkhttpd/958358-darkhttpd/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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 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]: 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. Since the only code file already contains comments describing its status under the BSD license, I don't see a point in including the same license as a separate file. [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. (Tested 32-bit here). [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. There is no "check" rule in the Makefile. There are some tests in Git but these are not included in the tarball and seem to require some manual setup in order to run. [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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: darkhttpd-1.9-1.fc17.i686.rpm darkhttpd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inetd -> dinette darkhttpd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ucspi -> cuspid darkhttpd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcp -> pct, tsp, tip darkhttpd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure darkhttpd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow darkhttpd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pthreads -> threads, p threads, thread darkhttpd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sendfile -> send file, send-file, senile darkhttpd.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary darkhttpd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint darkhttpd darkhttpd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inetd -> dinette darkhttpd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ucspi -> cuspid darkhttpd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcp -> pct, tsp, tip darkhttpd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure darkhttpd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow darkhttpd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pthreads -> threads, p threads, thread darkhttpd.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sendfile -> send file, send-file, senile darkhttpd.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary darkhttpd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Requires -------- darkhttpd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- darkhttpd: darkhttpd darkhttpd(x86-32) Source checksums ---------------- http://unix4lyfe.org/darkhttpd/darkhttpd-1.9.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 33ef622069dc167bcf85e46482388f2d6555e25796f64a6c5b215d939f2b41c8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 33ef622069dc167bcf85e46482388f2d6555e25796f64a6c5b215d939f2b41c8 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-17-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 958358 It would be nice if there were a manpage for the binary. That said, with no blocking issues, the 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=Xtl3OcFOmC&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review