https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051128 Thomas Sailer <t.sailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |t.sailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. => GPLv3 [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. => package does not include license text [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. => are you sure it is GPLv3+? DESCRIPTION simply says "GPL-3". [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [X]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. => no GUI app [X]: Development files must be in a -devel package => no devel files [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]: 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. [X]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [X]: Package is not known to 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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]: 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 R: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires. [x]: Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION [x]: The package has the standard %install section. [x]: Package requires R-core. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [X]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. => does this make sense? or how is it handled in the R domain? [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]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. R: [x]: The %check macro is present [x]: Latest version is packaged. Note: Latest upstream version is 1.0.2, packaged version is 1.0.2 ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: R-TH.data-1.0.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm R-TH.data-1.0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint R-TH.data 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- R-TH.data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): R-core Provides -------- R-TH.data: R-TH.data Source checksums ---------------- ftp://cran.r-project.org/pub/R/contrib/main/TH.data_1.0-2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ada7328a0085258686aac484aa755c31baad58f6e25d8365945ba065f7fe9684 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ada7328a0085258686aac484aa755c31baad58f6e25d8365945ba065f7fe9684 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1051128 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, R, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, 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