https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867959 Haïkel Guémar <karlthered@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Haïkel Guémar <karlthered@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (2 clause)". 463 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/867959-libgit2/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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Cannot unpack rpms (using --prebuilt?) [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Re-using old build in mock [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]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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). [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]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [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. [x]: %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]: 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 ------- libgit2.src: I: checking libgit2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libgit2.src: I: checking-url http://libgit2.github.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) libgit2.src: I: checking-url https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/archive/v0.18.0.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) libgit2.x86_64: I: checking libgit2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linkable -> likable, sinkable, link able The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. libgit2.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libgit2.github.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) libgit2-devel.x86_64: I: checking libgit2-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://libgit2.github.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) libgit2-devel.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/libgit2-devel-0.18.0/examples/test/test-rev-list.sh /bin/bash An included file marked as %doc creates a possible additional dependency in the package. Usually, this is not wanted and may be caused by eg. example scripts with executable bits set included in the package's documentation. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- Provides -------- Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/libgit2/libgit2/archive/v0.18.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 88a6ef6f87905e0b574123b85c5746025a408c6169e754906e939acbca75ac5f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 88a6ef6f87905e0b574123b85c5746025a408c6169e754906e939acbca75ac5f Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 867959 --no-build Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5463117 rpmlint: nothing relevant I hereby approve this package into Fedora Package Collection, you should wait that libxdiff is imported in branched releases or request a build override (rawhide should be fine). Do not close this ticket before depends are not done. -- 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=pPifkTxizL&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review