https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010557 Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package has some 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. ---> there's no LICENSE / COPYING in tarball. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. ---> see rpmlint's output below [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed ---> this is not even needed for el5. remove it, please. [-]: 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. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. ---> there are issues inside spec-file. see remarks in this report. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 40960 bytes in 3 files. [!]: 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]: 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 ===== 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. ---> ask upstream to include a file describing the actual license. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [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. [x]: 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. ---> `%{__cp} -r` should be `%{__cp} -pr` to preserve timestamps, too. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define theme Numix, %define author satya164 ---> use %global instead of %define. can't see any use of %{author} in spec-file?!? Why did you define that? [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== 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: numix-gtk-theme-2.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm numix-gtk-theme-2.0-1.fc21.src.rpm numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Numix is a modern flat theme with a combination of light and dark elements. It supports Gnome, Unity, XFCE and Openbox. ---> make lines split at a max. of 80 chars. numix-gtk-theme.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ---> * Sat Sep 21 2013 Satyajit Sahoo <satya164@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 2.0-1 numix-gtk-theme.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0+ ---> License: GPLv3+ numix-gtk-theme.src: E: description-line-too-long C Numix is a modern flat theme with a combination of light and dark elements. It supports Gnome, Unity, XFCE and Openbox. numix-gtk-theme.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog numix-gtk-theme.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0+ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint numix-gtk-theme numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Numix is a modern flat theme with a combination of light and dark elements. It supports Gnome, Unity, XFCE and Openbox. numix-gtk-theme.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog numix-gtk-theme.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0+ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- numix-gtk-theme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gtk-murrine-engine Provides -------- numix-gtk-theme: numix-gtk-theme Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/shimmerproject/Numix/archive/v2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 46d178b1a2c08f5ec839f66e73814ed3dfbeb444cff812d8b586526a889df012 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 46d178b1a2c08f5ec839f66e73814ed3dfbeb444cff812d8b586526a889df012 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 1010557 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 ##### Please fix-up those issues and I'll give it another try. :) -- 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=mQjORWVYqf&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review