https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882711 Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Alon, Your package got approved, you can check the review below. At this moment, please follow the process from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner If you have any questions please let me know. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/ovirt-host- deploy/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: 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 [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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]: 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 Java: [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms Python: [x]: 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 [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [-]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ovirt-host- deploy-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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. Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ovirt-host-deploy-1.1.1-2.fc19.noarch.rpm ovirt-host-deploy-java-1.1.1-2.fc19.noarch.rpm ovirt-host-deploy-javadoc-1.1.1-2.fc19.noarch.rpm ovirt-host-deploy-1.1.1-2.fc19.src.rpm ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C oVirt host deploy tool ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/interface-3/otopi-plugins/otopi ../../../otopi/plugins/otopi ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/interface-3/.bundled ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/interface-3/.bundled ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/interface-3/otopi ../../../sbin/otopi ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/plugins/ovirt-host-deploy/vdsmhooks/hooks.d/.keep ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/plugins/ovirt-host-deploy/vdsmhooks/hooks.d/.keep ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/plugins/ovirt-host-deploy/vdsmhooks/packages.d/.keep ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/plugins/ovirt-host-deploy/vdsmhooks/packages.d/.keep ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/interface-3/pythonlib/otopi ../../../../lib/python2.7/site-packages/otopi ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ovirt-host-deploy ovirt-host-deploy-java.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C ovirt-host-deploy java support ovirt-host-deploy-java.noarch: W: no-documentation ovirt-host-deploy-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados ovirt-host-deploy.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C oVirt host deploy tool 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 12 warnings. All above can be ignore. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ovirt-host-deploy ovirt-host-deploy-java ovirt-host-deploy-javadoc ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C oVirt host deploy tool ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/interface-3/otopi-plugins/otopi ../../../otopi/plugins/otopi ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/interface-3/.bundled ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/interface-3/.bundled ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/interface-3/otopi ../../../sbin/otopi ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/plugins/ovirt-host-deploy/vdsmhooks/hooks.d/.keep ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/plugins/ovirt-host-deploy/vdsmhooks/hooks.d/.keep ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/plugins/ovirt-host-deploy/vdsmhooks/packages.d/.keep ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/plugins/ovirt-host-deploy/vdsmhooks/packages.d/.keep ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/ovirt-host-deploy/interface-3/pythonlib/otopi ../../../../lib/python2.7/site-packages/otopi ovirt-host-deploy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ovirt-host-deploy ovirt-host-deploy-java.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C ovirt-host-deploy java support ovirt-host-deploy-java.noarch: W: no-documentation ovirt-host-deploy-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 11 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' All above can be ignore. Requires -------- ovirt-host-deploy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh otopi python python(abi) ovirt-host-deploy-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils otopi-java ovirt-host-deploy ovirt-host-deploy-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- ovirt-host-deploy: ovirt-host-deploy ovirt-host-deploy-java: mvn(org.ovirt.ovirt-host-deploy:ovirt-host-deploy) ovirt-host-deploy-java ovirt-host-deploy-javadoc: ovirt-host-deploy-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- http://resources.ovirt.org/releases/3.3/src/ovirt-host-deploy-1.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1252a84c19088fa250f2dabdb4b4a54c24f5b99f44b5abd47b87180803a8ca5d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1252a84c19088fa250f2dabdb4b4a54c24f5b99f44b5abd47b87180803a8ca5d Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n ./ovirt-host-deploy-1.1.1-2.fc19.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG Final Status: APPROVED -- 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=WNYFRKjEb9&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review