https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018492 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Review: [+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue ** Mandatory review guidelines: ** [+] rpmlint output: [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm vcsh.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure vcsh.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US configs -> con figs, con-figs, configure vcsh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure vcsh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash vcsh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US configs -> con figs, con-figs, configure vcsh.src:52: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ [+] License is acceptable [+] License field in spec is correct [+] License files included in package %docs if included in source package [+] License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed [+] Spec written in American English [+] Spec is legible [+] Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ review-md5check.sh ../SPECS/vcsh.spec Getting https://github.com/RichiH/vcsh/archive/v1.20130909.tar.gz to /tmp/review/v1.20130909.tar.gz % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 124 100 124 0 0 56 0 0:00:02 0:00:02 --:--:-- 56 100 23850 100 23850 0 0 6317 0 0:00:03 0:00:03 --:--:-- 30228 6007dba2d65db1a8fe32d22d28094fd5 /tmp/review/v1.20130909.tar.gz 6007dba2d65db1a8fe32d22d28094fd5 /home/asinha/rpmbuild/SOURCES/v1.20130909.tar.gz removed ‘/tmp/review/v1.20130909.tar.gz’ removed directory: ‘/tmp/review’ [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ [+] Build succeeds on at least one primary arch [+] Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed [+] BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary [-] Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/* [-] %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files [+] No bundled libs [-] Relocatability is justified [+] Package owns all directories it creates [+] Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own Note that the package owns the /usr/share/zsh directory which is owned by other packages also. However, since this is for optional functionality, this is OK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ sudo repoquery -l zsh | egrep '^/usr/share/zsh$' /usr/share/zsh [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ rpmls /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/vcsh-1.20130909-2.fc21.noarch.rpm -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/vcsh drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/vcsh -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/vcsh/CONTRIBUTORS -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/vcsh/LICENSE -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/vcsh/README.md -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/vcsh/changelog -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/vcsh/hooks -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/vcsh.1.gz drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/zsh drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/zsh/site-functions -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/zsh/site-functions/_vcsh [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ [+] No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files [+] File permissions are sane [+] Package contains permissible code or content [-] Large docs go in -doc subpackage [+] %doc files not required at runtime [-] Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides [-] Development files go in -devel package [-] -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa [-] No .la files [-] GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install [+] File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification [+] File names are valid UTF-8 ** Optional review guidelines: ** [-] Query upstream about including license files [-] Translations of description, summary [+] Builds in mock [+] Builds on all arches [+] Functions as described (e.g. no crashes) [-] Scriptlets are sane [-] Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible [-] .pc file subpackage placement is sensible [+] No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin [+] Include man pages if available Naming guidelines: [+] Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+ [+] Package names are sane [+] No naming conflicts [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] Version is sane [+] Version does not contain ~ [+] Release is sane [+] %dist tag [-] Case used only when necessary [-] Renaming handled correctly Packaging guidelines: [+] Useful without external bits [+] No kmods [-] Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep [+] Sources contain only redistributable code or content [+] Spec format is sane [+] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target [+] No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17 [-] Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run [-] Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17 [+] No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local [+] Changelog in prescribed format [+] No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags [+] Summary does not end in a period [-] Correct BuildRoot tag on < EL6 [-] Correct %clean section on < EL6 [+] Requires correct, justified where necessary [+] Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly [+] All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc [+] Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x) [+] Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc [+] Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise [-] PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs [+] Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified [-] Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6 [+] No static executables [+] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs [-] Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config [+] No config files under /usr [-] Third party package manager configs acceptable, in %_docdir [-] .desktop files are sane [+] Spec uses macros consistently [+] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate [+] Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed [-] %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work [+] Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time [+] Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir [+] No software collections (scl) [-] Macro files named /etc/rpm/macros.%name [-] Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs [-] %global, not %define [-] Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it [-] Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel [-] File ops preserve timestamps [+] Parallel make [+] No Requires(pre,post) notation [-] User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups) [-] Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www [-] Conflicts are justified [+] One project per package [+] No bundled fonts [-] Patches have appropriate commentary [-] Available test suites executed in %check [-] tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15 Nitpicks: - Please comment the patch, and send it upstream too. - Since you're installing to pkgdocdir, and the %doc macro already takes ownership of it, you don't need to specify it again. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_prefixes: "Usually, "%doc" is used to list documentation files within %{_builddir} that were not copied to %{buildroot}. A README and INSTALL file is usually included. They will be placed in an appropriate directory under /usr/share/doc, whose ownership does not need to be declared. " Not blockers though. You can fix them up before you commit to SCM. +++ APPROVED +++ Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review