https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915144 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #18 from Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package has issues, see below. ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - update-desktop-database is invoked when required Note: desktop file(s) in rasmol, rasmol-gtk See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache ---> false positive: no mime-type in desktop-file - bogus date in %changelog: Wed Mar 14 2013 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich 2.7.5-7 - bogus date in %changelog: Thu Mar 13 2013 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich 2.7.5-6 - bogus date in %changelog: Thu Mar 13 2013 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich 2.7.5-5 ---> fix this, please - manual-page-warning rasmol.1x.gz 1: warning: macro `PU' not defined - manual-page-warning rasmol.1x.gz 4119: warning: macro `false',' not defined ---> please fix this, e.g. with patch - rasmol.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/rasmol-2.7.5/GPL ---> please inform upstream and ask for including recent rev. of that document - more issues to be found in inline-comments of report ===== 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. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. ---> LDFLAGS are ommitted on linking [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. ---> bogus dates, see above [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rasmol-doc ---> false positve: doc-subpkg is noarch and should not require binaries [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: "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 97 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/915144-rasmol/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ---> add %doc GPL to -doc-pkg [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked when required Note: icons in rasmol [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 481280 bytes in 20 files. ---> you should move all %doc, but GPL, to doc-pkg [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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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. [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. [-]: 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. ---> no check-target avail in Makefile [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. ---> add -p switch to install-commands, please. [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: rasmol-2.7.5-7.fc20.x86_64.rpm rasmol-gtk-2.7.5-7.fc20.x86_64.rpm rasmol-doc-2.7.5-7.fc20.noarch.rpm rasmol.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/rasmol.1x.gz 1: warning: macro `PU' not defined rasmol.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/rasmol.1x.gz 4119: warning: macro `false',' not defined rasmol.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/rasmol-2.7.5/GPL rasmol.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rasmolb rasmol-gtk.x86_64: W: no-documentation rasmol-gtk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grasmol 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rasmol-doc rasmol-gtk rasmol rasmol-gtk.x86_64: W: no-documentation rasmol-gtk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grasmol rasmol.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/rasmol.1x.gz 1: warning: macro `PU' not defined rasmol.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/rasmol.1x.gz 4119: warning: macro `false',' not defined rasmol.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/rasmol-2.7.5/GPL rasmol.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rasmolb 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rasmol-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): rasmol-gtk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libCNearTree.so.5()(64bit) libCQRlib.so.2()(64bit) libCVector-1.0.3.so.2()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXi.so.6()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libcbf.so.0()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libvte.so.9()(64bit) rasmol(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) rasmol (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libCNearTree.so.5()(64bit) libCQRlib.so.2()(64bit) libCVector-1.0.3.so.2()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXi.so.6()(64bit) libXpm.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcbf.so.0()(64bit) libforms.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) xterm Provides -------- rasmol-doc: rasmol-doc rasmol-gtk: rasmol-gtk rasmol-gtk(x86-64) rasmol: rasmol rasmol(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.rasmol.org/software/RasMol_2.7.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : aa7e7fd4b3c074e67697bd6adf7e86b9a4c60b605f5a319d6ecdd144b39f7fe9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aa7e7fd4b3c074e67697bd6adf7e86b9a4c60b605f5a319d6ecdd144b39f7fe9 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 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 915144 ##### Please fix the issues and I'll take another review. -- 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=ZSnfFG2DBN&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review