https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943 --- Comment #14 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Manual Review ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mostly looks good, just a couple of things: TL;DR: (1) Lincences Unknown or generated -------------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/lpf-46ae0c3b2791013a2b5b1d03137538b9bc906350/scripts/build_error.py /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/lpf-46ae0c3b2791013a2b5b1d03137538b9bc906350/scripts/update.py (2) No %check? (3) Rationale for the non-standard-dir-perm (from rpmlint errors) ===== MUST items ===== 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]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [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. [-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/lpf/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. [-]: 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]: update-desktop-database is invoked when required Note: desktop file(s) in lpf - {No 'MimeType key' in lpf.desktop, that's fine} [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked when required Note: icons in lpf ---------------- - $ grep gtk-update srpm-unpacked/lpf.spec /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : /usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || : ---------------- [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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. - {I didn't test the package extensively.} [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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint lpf lpf.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) redistributable -> redistribute, redistribution, attributable lpf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US akmod -> Kodak lpf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dkms -> dims, dams, DBMS lpf.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0-1.c4bc5a2 ['0-2.7df703a.fc20', '0-2.7df703a'] lpf.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/lpf/rpms pkg-build lpf.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/lpf/rpms pkg-build lpf.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/lpf/rpms 0775L lpf.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/lpf pkg-build lpf.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/lpf pkg-build lpf.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/lpf 0775L lpf.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/lpf/log pkg-build lpf.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/lpf/log pkg-build lpf.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/lpf/log 0775L lpf.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/lpf/packages pkg-build lpf.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/lpf/packages pkg-build lpf.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/lpf/packages 0775L lpf.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/lpf/approvals pkg-build lpf.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/lpf/approvals pkg-build lpf.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/lpf/approvals 0775L lpf.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lpf 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 15 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' - {Can you provide the rationale for the non-standard-dir-perm?} Source checksums ---------------- Matches: https://github.com/leamas/lpf/archive/46ae0c3b2791013a2b5b1d03137538b9bc906350/lpf-46ae0c3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9343f7c1b2b338d1873b77a77f1e67e69638016ee9a68a182a499d521abc222c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9343f7c1b2b338d1873b77a77f1e67e69638016ee9a68a182a499d521abc222c -- 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=Py5sL0geDP&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review