https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026380 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- [+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue ** Mandatory review guidelines: ** [+] rpmlint output: [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm ../SPECS/corebird.spec ./corebird-0.5-1.fc20.src.rpm corebird.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/baedert/corebird/archive/corebird-0.5.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found corebird.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary corebird ../SPECS/corebird.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/baedert/corebird/archive/corebird-0.5.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found corebird.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/baedert/corebird/archive/corebird-0.5.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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 [+] 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 ^ Please also own the appdata directory. It's OK to co-own it since gnome-software isn't required for functioning of this package. [+] Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own [+] 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 [asinha@ankur-laptop result]$ review-req-check == corebird-0.5-1.fc21.src.rpm == Provides: Requires: gtk3-devel >= 3.9 glib2-devel >= 2.38 rest-devel json-glib-devel libnotify-devel sqlite-devel libsoup-devel vala-devel cmake librsvg2-tools desktop-file-utils libgee-devel == corebird-0.5-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm == Provides: application() application(corebird.desktop) corebird = 0.5-1.fc21 corebird(x86-64) = 0.5-1.fc21 Requires: /bin/sh /bin/sh /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgee-0.8.so.2()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libnotify.so.4()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) librest-0.7.so.0()(64bit) libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) == corebird-debuginfo-0.5-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm == Provides: corebird-debuginfo = 0.5-1.fc21 corebird-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.5-1.fc21 Requires: [+] 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 PACKAGE IS *** APPROVED *** Tiny issues you should correct before importing: - No need to remove fonts from the ./data directory. They aren't included in the tar any more. - Please co-own the appdata directory Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur -- 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