https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035934 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Version numbering must be sane Note: if you get the code from SVN, please mark the version as the svn revision you used. Since these are two files, you could include them as seperate links to the direct SVN rev. - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: mod_form : /usr/include/httpd/mod_form.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Code is GPLv2+, spec says GPLv2 - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Note: apxs does not use the official C building flags (add -Wc,%{optflags}) - If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Note: Please include a link to an upstream bug report for this, or info when you sent an email - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Note: I do not see a reference for the mod_form.c.preserve_args.patch ===== MUST items ===== Extra: [!]: Version numbering must be sane C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [-]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Issue: code is GPLv2+, spec says GPLv2 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 does not contain duplicates in %files. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: 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. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: 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. [-]: %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]: 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 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: mod_form-0.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm mod_form-0.1-1.el6.src.rpm mod_form.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow mod_form.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US urlencoded -> encoded mod_form.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multipart -> multiparty, multiplier mod_form.x86_64: W: no-documentation mod_form.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/httpd/mod_form.h mod_form.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/httpd/mod_form.h mod_form.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/httpd/modules/mod_form.so 0775L mod_form.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow mod_form.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US urlencoded -> encoded mod_form.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multipart -> multiparty, multiplier mod_form.src: W: invalid-url Source0: mod_form-0.1.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mod_form mod_form.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow mod_form.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US urlencoded -> encoded mod_form.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multipart -> multiparty, multiplier mod_form.x86_64: W: no-documentation mod_form.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/httpd/mod_form.h mod_form.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/httpd/mod_form.h mod_form.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/httpd/modules/mod_form.so 0775L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mod_form (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): httpd libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- mod_form: mod_form mod_form(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- mod_form: /usr/lib64/httpd/modules/mod_form.so Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n mod_form --prebuilt Buildroot used: fedora-19-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