https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967485 Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland@xxxxxxxxxx> --- [OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review Rpmlint ------- Checking: nf3d-0.8-1.fc18.noarch.rpm nf3d.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nf3d 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. There is no man page, if possible work with upstream to provide man-page. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nf3d nf3d.noarch: W: no-documentation nf3d.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nf3d/infos.py nf3d.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/nf3d.conf nf3d.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nf3d/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env nf3d.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nf3d/__init__.py nf3d.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/nf3d nf3d.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nf3d/connobj.py 0644L /usr/bin/env nf3d.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nf3d/connobj.py nf3d.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nf3d 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 warnings. Please work with upstream to solve the above issues (FSF address and python sources with shebang) [OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [OK] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc [OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [OK] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 26c9d9128879b0b97df5c5bd3efebd99ad4acfba8a84ae25931821b6a3fab409 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 26c9d9128879b0b97df5c5bd3efebd99ad4acfba8a84ae25931821b6a3fab409 [OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [OK] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros [OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content [OK] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 Python ============= [OK]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [OK]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Should ========= [OK]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [OK]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [OK]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [OK]: Buildroot is not present [OK]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [OK]: Dist tag is present. [OK]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [OK]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [OK]: SourceX is a working URL. [OK]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Status: 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=vwMtbAWRs5&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review