https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004053 Björn "besser82" 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 #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package has some severe issues :( ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. ---> actual license is GPLv2+. please fix. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. ---> %changelog MUST have the format: DATE RealName <x@xxxxx> - %{version}-%{release} [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required ---> needed for el5, only. please remove this. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed ---> needed for el5, only. please remove this. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> severe issues are present. please fix. [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). [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Dist tag is present ---> please append %{?dist} to Release. This is needed to have different releases for each dist, e.g. fc18, fc19, ... [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed ---> needed for el5, only. please remove this. [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required ---> needed for el5, only. please remove this. [-]: 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). ---> according to README there are some other things used: - hddtemp for the HDD Temperature widget type - alsa-utils for the Volume widget type - wireless_tools for the Wireless widget type - curl for widget types accessing network resources so yoou need to add: Requires: alsa-utils Requires: curl Requires: hddtemp Requires: wireless-tools [x]: Package functions as described. [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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ---> pkg is noarch. [-]: %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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: vicious-2.1.1-2.noarch.rpm vicious-2.1.1-2.src.rpm vicious.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Vicious vicious.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Vicious ---> that's usualy a bad-pratice. please find a better Summary. see my comments for some suggestion. vicious.src: W: no-%build-section ---> see my comments below. vicious.src:6: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 2) ---> please use one OR the other. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint vicious vicious.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Vicious 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- vicious (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): awesome lua Provides -------- vicious: vicious Source checksums ---------------- http://git.sysphere.org/vicious/snapshot/vicious-2.1.1.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e540e75faac4f048c0617c1d9b56d09af97189cc381d1d5e0613b6dd4a680dd8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e540e75faac4f048c0617c1d9b56d09af97189cc381d1d5e0613b6dd4a680dd8 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1004053 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG ##### Some additional comments to your spec: * You should keep some order and grouping inside the tags, e.g. Name: Version: Release: Summary: License: URL: Source0: BuildRequires: Requires: Provides: Obsoletes: * Summaries should start or repeat the pkgs name, suggestion: Summary: Framework for Awesome to create widgets based on LUA * Simply untaring the source during %install is bad-pratice I'd suggest having allok at the sources before starting with spec and look what's needed to go where. When you are sure where to put you should you mkdir -p / install -pm / cp -a to get the files to their proper locations. * Just having no %build is not recommended. If %build is empty, I suggest: %build # noop * Consider running `sed -i -e "s/[ \t]*$//g" $spec` on your spec file, to clean up trailing whitespaces. * There are some files inside the source which should get install by %doc. %doc CHANGES LICENSE README* TODO ##### Please the issues and I'll take another review on this. :) ##### Before I'm going to sponsor you, I'd like you to take 3 or 4 more informal reviews some packages of different "flavour" :) -- 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=9pKyQ9hyX7&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review