https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=954074 --- Comment #10 from Scott Talbert <swt@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= [!]: License field should be GPLv2 (vs GPLv2+) - I did not see anything indicating "or later version" unless I missed something. [!]: A couple of minor spelling errors: virtualisation -> virtualization; orientated -> oriented. [!]: Packaging doesn't preserve the timestamps of the files that are getting modified by sed. I'm not sure if this is worth fixing, though? You could maybe get the timestamp with 'stat' and then reset it with 'touch' after the sed operation. Not sure how big a deal this is, though. ===== 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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/talbert/fedora- review/954074-RemoteBox/licensecheck.txt (GPLv2+ vs GPLv2) [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. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. (spelling errors) [-]: 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 348160 bytes in 3 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 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 Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. ===== 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). [?]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: RemoteBox-1.6-1.fc21.noarch.rpm RemoteBox-1.6-1.fc21.src.rpm RemoteBox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualisation -> visualization RemoteBox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vboxmanage -> manageable RemoteBox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vboxwebsrv RemoteBox.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary remotebox RemoteBox.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualisation -> visualization RemoteBox.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vboxmanage -> manageable RemoteBox.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vboxwebsrv 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint RemoteBox RemoteBox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualisation -> visualization RemoteBox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vboxmanage -> manageable RemoteBox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vboxwebsrv RemoteBox.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary remotebox 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- RemoteBox (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.1) perl(Carp) perl(Encode) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Spec) perl(FindBin) perl(MIME::Base64) perl(POSIX) perl(SOAP::Lite) perl(lib) perl(strict) perl(vars) perl(warnings) perl-Gtk2 perl-libwww-perl rdesktop xdg-utils Provides -------- RemoteBox: RemoteBox application() application(RemoteBox.desktop) Source checksums ---------------- http://knobgoblin.org.uk/downloads/RemoteBox-1.6.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : be50da66ae4b112bf977e940baa48a65c16dccdfc0196c8184b41dd89fb19789 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : be50da66ae4b112bf977e940baa48a65c16dccdfc0196c8184b41dd89fb19789 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 954074 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG -- 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