https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968262 Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi package reviewed manually + fedora-review tool 0.4.1 b2e211f [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: xboxdrv-0.8.5-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm xboxdrv.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace xboxdrv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gamepad -> game pad, game-pad, gamed xboxdrv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace xboxdrv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xpad -> pad, x pad xboxdrv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gamepads -> game pads, game-pads, gamekeepers xboxdrv.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib xboxdrv.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/xboxdrv-0.8.5/examples/responsecurve-generator.py /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint xboxdrv xboxdrv.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Userspace -> User space, User-space, Users pace xboxdrv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gamepad -> game pad, game-pad, gamed xboxdrv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace xboxdrv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xpad -> pad, x pad xboxdrv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gamepads -> game pads, game-pads, gamekeepers xboxdrv.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib It's the service file. xboxdrv.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/xboxdrv-0.8.5/examples/responsecurve-generator.py /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. All above warnings can be ignored. [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 : 411195c4f5310a1a5f21f015daaf00b277f75da89df710308f8abfcf8f337e78 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 411195c4f5310a1a5f21f015daaf00b277f75da89df710308f8abfcf8f337e78 [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: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [OK] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [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: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [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. [OK] SHOULD: Package functions as described. [OK] SHOULD: Latest version is packaged. [OK] SHOULD: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [OK] SHOULD: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [OK] SHOULD: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [OK] SHOULD: Buildroot is not present [OK] SHOULD: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [OK] SHOULD: Dist tag is present. [OK] SHOULD: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [OK] SHOULD: Uses parallel make. [OK] SHOULD: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [OK] SHOULD: SourceX is a working URL. [OK] SHOULD: Spec use %global instead of %define. Suggestion ================ The official license is GPLv3 as COPYING file shares. However, looks like these two sources below are not updated (license + FSF address). Can you please talk with upstream? If required, please update again the spec. GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) ---------------------------------------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/xboxdrv-linux-0.8.5/tools/evtest.c /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/xboxdrv-linux-0.8.5/tools/jstest.c The above suggested can be worked in parallel of packaging. Final 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=eeJAwUJ8MN&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review