https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1032108 --- Comment #43 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> --- 1. /usr/share/locale/yarock doesn't seem to be owned. Not sure if this is a find_lang bug or what. Perhaps the arguments are confusing it? You can manually run the find_lang.sh rpm uses and see if you can track it down. Or perhaps someone else has seen this? 2. Whats the status of upstreaming the patches? It's usually good practice to add comments next to any patches in the spec with links to any upstream bug reports, or even just a 'sent to upstream on yyyy-mm-dd' Otherwise things look good from here. Solve those and I can approve. ;) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/kevin/yarock /review-yarock/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/yarock [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/yarock [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in yarock [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is known to not require an ExcludeArch tag. [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 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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]: 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]: 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: 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: yarock-0.9.64-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm yarock-0.9.64-2.fc21.src.rpm yarock.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coverart -> cover art, cover-art, covert yarock.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary yarock yarock.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/yarock/yarock_cs.qm yarock.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coverart -> cover art, cover-art, covert 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint yarock yarock.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US coverart -> cover art, cover-art, covert yarock.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary yarock yarock.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/yarock/yarock_cs.qm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- yarock (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtDBus.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libQtSolutions_SingleApplication-2.6.so.1()(64bit) libQtSolutions_SingleCoreApplication-2.6.so.1()(64bit) libQtSql.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libQxtGui.so.0()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libechonest.so.2.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libphonon.so.4()(64bit) libqjson.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libtag.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- yarock: application() application(yarock.desktop) yarock yarock(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://launchpad.net/yarock/trunk/0.9.64/+download/Yarock_0.9.64_11_source.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 619d4fb6dc2afb1c15ff0b7409cfc5df7fe4a3f5d2f84e60d62129038fc5832e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 619d4fb6dc2afb1c15ff0b7409cfc5df7fe4a3f5d2f84e60d62129038fc5832e Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n yarock Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG -- 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