https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915144 Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Flags|needinfo?(bjoern.esser@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #31 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Sorry for the huge delay here. Your package has some small issues left. ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [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. ---> License is fine. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ---> the -doc pkg misses some of the license-files. In fact the files named NOTICE and RASLIC carry some imported notes on license, too. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps ---> your package MUST Requires: hicolor-icon-theme [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 481280 bytes in 20 files. ---> the ChangeLog-folder just contains split copies of ChangeLog.txt, so you can purge it from being included. The whole %doc in the arched pkg is about the same size as the binaries within. I'd recommend to move all, but GPL, NOTICE, RASLIC, to the -doc pkg. You will need to include NOTICE and RASLIC into the -doc, too, because these files carry some important informations about licensing/copyright as well. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> issues are present [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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 or desktop- file-validate 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 ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [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]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: rasmol-2.7.5-9.fc21.x86_64.rpm rasmol-gtk-2.7.5-9.fc21.x86_64.rpm rasmol-doc-2.7.5-9.fc21.noarch.rpm rasmol-2.7.5-9.fc21.src.rpm rasmol.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/rasmol/GPL rasmol.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/rasmol.1x.gz 4118: warning: macro `false',' not defined 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 rasmol-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/rasmol-doc/GPL 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rasmol-doc rasmol-gtk rasmol rasmol-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/rasmol-doc/GPL rasmol-gtk.x86_64: W: no-documentation rasmol-gtk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grasmol rasmol.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/rasmol/GPL rasmol.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/rasmol.1x.gz 4118: warning: macro `false',' not defined rasmol.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rasmolb 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 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 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 915144 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG ##### Resolve these last small four issues and I'll grant 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=eV2mLklkJq&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review