https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033986 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng <cickumqt@xxxxxxxxx> --- 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. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck: Unknown or generated -------------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/Lingua-EN-Syllable-0.251/Syllable.pm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/builddir/build/BUILD/Lingua-EN-Syllable-0.251/test.pl [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Lingua(perl-Lingua-Preferred, perl-Lingua- Stem-Ru, perl-Lingua-Identify, perl-Lingua-Stem-It, perl-Lingua-EN- Inflect, perl-Lingua-EN-Numbers-Ordinate, perl-Snowball-Norwegian, perl- Snowball-Swedish, perl-Lingua-EN-Inflect-Phrase, perl-Lingua-Stem-Fr, perl-Lingua-EN-Numbers-Easy, perl-Lingua-EN-Alphabet-Shaw, perl-Lingua- Flags, perl-Lingua-Stem, perl-Lingua-PT-Stemmer, perl-Lingua-StopWords, perl-Lingua-Stem-Snowball-Da, perl-Lingua-EN-Numbers), /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Lingua/EN(perl-Lingua-EN-Inflect, perl- Lingua-EN-Numbers-Ordinate, perl-Lingua-EN-Numbers, perl-Lingua-EN- Alphabet-Shaw, perl-Lingua-EN-Inflect-Phrase, perl-Lingua-EN-Numbers- Easy) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. [x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [x]: 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]: 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. [x]: %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]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable-0.251-1.fc21.noarch.rpm perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable-0.251-1.fc21.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.1) perl(Exporter) perl(strict) perl(vars) Provides -------- perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable: perl(Lingua::EN::Syllable) perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable Source checksums ---------------- http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/G/GR/GREGFAST/Lingua-EN-Syllable-0.251.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 874d9ce52ae1b247e8e561279686a86acebadf883a676589aa0084af9391b609 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 874d9ce52ae1b247e8e561279686a86acebadf883a676589aa0084af9391b609 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rvn perl-Lingua-EN-Syllable-0.251-1.fc19.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG ---------------- Issues: 1. This is not allowed: * Fri Nov 22 2013 mock <mock@xxxxxxxxxxx> 0.251-1 Please change. 2. rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \; find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2>/dev/null \; %{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/* Sort like: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \; %{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/* And this line can be safely dropped: find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2>/dev/null \; I'd like to see your new spec/srpm then I will approve. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review