https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895149 Dan Mashal <dan.mashal@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Dan Mashal <dan.mashal@xxxxxxxxx> --- APPROVED. Looks fine here. Tested, and installed properly on a rawhide box. I will leave it up to Rex's good and proven judgement as to why this package should be in Fedora. Rex, please review the shoulds. Licensing looks OK. Go on. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Check did not completechecksum differs and there are problems running diff. Please verify manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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/dan/895149-qtchooser/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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: No rpmlint messages. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define git g980c64c [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). [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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/dan/895149-qtchooser/srpm/qtchooser.spec 2013-07-28 06:48:59.901201161 -0700 +++ /home/dan/895149-qtchooser/srpm-unpacked/qtchooser.spec 2013-07-28 06:49:01.758243319 -0700 @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ -%define git g980c64c +%define git g8f08405 Name: qtchooser Summary: Qt Chooser -Version: 31 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Version: 9 +Release: 2%{?dist} License: LGPLv2 or GPLv3 @@ -47,9 +47,8 @@ mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/profile.d install -m644 -p %{SOURCE10} %{SOURCE11} \ - %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/profile.d/ + %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/profile.d %files -%doc LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt LICENSE.GPL LICENSE.LGPL %dir %{_sysconfdir}/xdg/qtchooser %{_sysconfdir}/profile.d/qtchooser.* @@ -68,6 +67,4 @@ %{_prefix}/lib/qtchooser/qdbusviewer %{_prefix}/lib/qtchooser/qdbusxml2cpp -%{_prefix}/lib/qtchooser/qdoc -%{_prefix}/lib/qtchooser/qdoc3 %{_prefix}/lib/qtchooser/qglinfo %{_prefix}/lib/qtchooser/qhelpconverter @@ -91,10 +88,4 @@ %changelog -* Sat May 18 2013 Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 31-1 -- qtchooser-31 - -* Wed Mar 06 2013 Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 26-1 -- qtchooser-26 - * Thu Jan 24 2013 Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 9-2 - move binaries to /usr/lib/qtchooser, keeps this optional, allows Requires -------- Provides -------- Source checksums ---------------- http://macieira.org/qtchooser/qtchooser-31-g980c64c.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b50acc2140aec58081b82e6df136251596dec7c5d3bf1f95c0ff650fa346d5cf Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 895149 -- 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=1ZPGG6QCUh&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review