https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006041 Tim Flink <tflink@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tflink@xxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tflink@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Tim Flink <tflink@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Mandatory review guidelines: - rpmlint output: [tflink@river heisenbug-backgrounds]$ rpmlint heisenbug-backgrounds-19.90.0-1.fc19.src.rpm heisenbug-backgrounds.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F20_Artwork HTTP Error 404: Not Found heisenbug-backgrounds.src:37: W: macro-in-comment %package heisenbug-backgrounds.src:41: W: macro-in-comment %{name} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:41: W: macro-in-comment %{version} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:41: W: macro-in-comment %{release} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:43: W: macro-in-comment %description heisenbug-backgrounds.src:90: W: macro-in-comment %package heisenbug-backgrounds.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %description heisenbug-backgrounds.src:99: W: macro-in-comment %package heisenbug-backgrounds.src:103: W: macro-in-comment %{name} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:105: W: macro-in-comment %description heisenbug-backgrounds.src:109: W: macro-in-comment %package heisenbug-backgrounds.src:113: W: macro-in-comment %{name} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:115: W: macro-in-comment %description heisenbug-backgrounds.src:118: W: macro-in-comment %package heisenbug-backgrounds.src:122: W: macro-in-comment %{name} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:124: W: macro-in-comment %description heisenbug-backgrounds.src:127: W: macro-in-comment %package heisenbug-backgrounds.src:131: W: macro-in-comment %{name} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:133: W: macro-in-comment %description heisenbug-backgrounds.src:161: W: macro-in-comment %files heisenbug-backgrounds.src:162: W: macro-in-comment %dir heisenbug-backgrounds.src:162: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:162: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:163: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:163: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:164: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:164: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:165: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:165: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:166: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:166: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:166: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:180: W: macro-in-comment %files heisenbug-backgrounds.src:181: W: macro-in-comment %doc heisenbug-backgrounds.src:182: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:182: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:183: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:183: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:184: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:184: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:184: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:186: W: macro-in-comment %files heisenbug-backgrounds.src:187: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:187: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:189: W: macro-in-comment %files heisenbug-backgrounds.src:190: W: macro-in-comment %{_kde4_datadir} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:190: W: macro-in-comment %{Bg_Name} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:192: W: macro-in-comment %files heisenbug-backgrounds.src:193: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:193: W: macro-in-comment %{bgname} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:195: W: macro-in-comment %files heisenbug-backgrounds.src:196: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} heisenbug-backgrounds.src:197: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 54 warnings. as noted above, this is OK - the artwork for f20 isn't done yet and the wiki page hasn't been created, the comment warnings are for code that's waiting to be enabled at a later time. the package - License is acceptable: yes, CC-BY-SA - License field in spec is correct: yes - License files included in package %docs if included in source package NA - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed: OK - Spec written in American English: OK - Spec is legible: OK - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues Upstream SHA256: ... Your SHA256: ... - Build succeeds on at least one primary arch: OK, tested on x86_64 - Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed: noarch - BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary: NA - Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/* : NA - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files: NA - No bundled libs: OK - Relocatability is justified: NA - Package owns all directories it creates: OK - Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own: OK - No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files: OK - File permissions are sane: OK - Package contains permissible code or content: OK - Large docs go in -doc subpackage: NA - %doc files not required at runtime: NA - Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides: NA - Development files go in -devel package: NA - -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa: NA - No .la files: OK - GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install: NA - File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification: OK - File names are valid UTF-8: OK Optional review guidelines: - Query upstream about including license files: NA, already exist - Translations of description, summary - Builds in mock: OK - Builds on all arches: NA, noarch - Functions as described (e.g. no crashes): OK - Scriptlets are sane: NA - Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible: OK - .pc file subpackage placement is sensible: NA - No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin: OK - Include man pages if available: NA Naming guidelines: - Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+ : OK - Package names are sane: OK - No naming conflicts: OK - Spec file name matches base package name: OK - Version is sane: OK - Version does not contain ~: OK - Release is sane: OK - %dist tag: OK - Case used only when necessary: OK - Renaming handled correctly: OK Packaging guidelines: - Useful without external bits: OK - No kmods: OK - Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep: OK - Sources contain only redistributable code or content: OK - Spec format is sane: OK - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target: OK - No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17: OK - Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run: NA - Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17: NA - No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local: OK - Changelog in prescribed format: OK - No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags: OK - Summary does not end in a period: OK - Correct BuildRoot tag on < EL6: NA, fedora only - Correct %clean section on < EL6: NA, fedora only - Requires correct, justified where necessary: OK - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly: OK - All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc: OK - Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x): OK - Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc: OK - Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise: OK - PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs: OK - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified: OK - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6: NA - No static executables: OK - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs: OK - Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config: NA - No config files under /usr: OK - Third party package manager configs acceptable, in %_docdir: NA - .desktop files are sane: NA, no desktop files - Spec uses macros consistently: OK - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate: OK - Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed: OK - %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work: NA - Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time: NA - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir: NA - No software collections (scl): OK - Macro files named /etc/rpm/macros.%name: NA - Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs: OK - %global, not %define: OK - Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it: NA - Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel: NA - File ops preserve timestamps: OK - Parallel make: NA - No Requires(pre,post) notation: OK - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups): NA - Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www: OK - Conflicts are justified: NA, no conflicts - One project per package: OK - No bundled fonts: OK - Patches have appropriate commentary: NA, no patches - Available test suites executed in %check: NA, no tests - just desktop backgrounds - tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15: NA, no tempfiles Overall, looks good to me. Tested with F20 gnome and kde, works fine. -- 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=paHpAbNK4R&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review