https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550 František Dvořák <valtri@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from František Dvořák <valtri@xxxxxxxxxx> --- 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 44 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 327680 bytes in 12 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: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mingw32-LibRaw-0.15.4-4.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw32-LibRaw-static-0.15.4-4.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw32-LibRaw-tools-0.15.4-4.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-LibRaw-0.15.4-4.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-LibRaw-static-0.15.4-4.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-LibRaw-tools-0.15.4-4.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw-LibRaw-0.15.4-4.fc21.src.rpm mingw32-LibRaw.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/mingw32-LibRaw/LICENSE.LGPL mingw32-LibRaw-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-LibRaw-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-LibRaw.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/mingw64-LibRaw/LICENSE.LGPL mingw64-LibRaw-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-LibRaw-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw-LibRaw.src: W: file-size-mismatch LibRaw-demosaic-pack-GPL3-0.15.4.tar.gz = 38196, http://www.libraw.org/data/LibRaw-demosaic-pack-GPL3-0.15.4.tar.gz = 38186 mingw-LibRaw.src: W: file-size-mismatch LibRaw-demosaic-pack-GPL2-0.15.4.tar.gz = 31271, http://www.libraw.org/data/LibRaw-demosaic-pack-GPL2-0.15.4.tar.gz = 31118 mingw-LibRaw.src: W: file-size-mismatch LibRaw-0.15.4.tar.gz = 1427757, http://www.libraw.org/data/LibRaw-0.15.4.tar.gz = 1439235 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mingw32-LibRaw-tools mingw64-LibRaw-tools mingw32-LibRaw mingw64-LibRaw-static mingw64-LibRaw mingw32-LibRaw-static mingw32-LibRaw-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-LibRaw-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-LibRaw.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/mingw32-LibRaw/LICENSE.LGPL mingw64-LibRaw-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-LibRaw.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/mingw64-LibRaw/LICENSE.LGPL mingw32-LibRaw-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mingw32-LibRaw-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll) mingw32(libraw-9.dll) mingw32(libraw_r-9.dll) mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw32(libwinpthread-1.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32(wsock32.dll) mingw32-LibRaw mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw64-LibRaw-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libgcc_s_seh-1.dll) mingw64(libraw-9.dll) mingw64(libraw_r-9.dll) mingw64(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw64(libwinpthread-1.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64(wsock32.dll) mingw64-LibRaw mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw32-LibRaw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll) mingw32(libjasper-1.dll) mingw32(libjpeg-62.dll) mingw32(liblcms2-2.dll) mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32(wsock32.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw32-pkg-config mingw64-LibRaw-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64-LibRaw mingw64-LibRaw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libgcc_s_seh-1.dll) mingw64(libjasper-1.dll) mingw64(libjpeg-62.dll) mingw64(liblcms2-2.dll) mingw64(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64(wsock32.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw64-pkg-config mingw32-LibRaw-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32-LibRaw Provides -------- mingw32-LibRaw-tools: mingw32-LibRaw-tools mingw64-LibRaw-tools: mingw64-LibRaw-tools mingw32-LibRaw: mingw32(libraw-9.dll) mingw32(libraw_r-9.dll) mingw32-LibRaw mingw64-LibRaw-static: mingw64-LibRaw-static mingw64-LibRaw: mingw64(libraw-9.dll) mingw64(libraw_r-9.dll) mingw64-LibRaw mingw32-LibRaw-static: mingw32-LibRaw-static Source checksums ---------------- http://www.libraw.org/data/LibRaw-demosaic-pack-GPL3-0.15.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1868c252ae0fc67d5a06862d93119f818a9208eef93f0e7832f6112ac6ef208a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : be2440dabb7df46aa22de10b96d5e3cc7b2eb006ae491e7598611f11aba4dfe0 http://www.libraw.org/data/LibRaw-0.15.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b3fcfee33bc34ae5869a9741880e28a62f029f196cb1d1a007ab156f4a110f79 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8d3a164674acfe6ff7164ab60397242c6e3144912fda7fa792c250c280e70746 http://www.libraw.org/data/LibRaw-demosaic-pack-GPL2-0.15.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4c4dc9328edab4af6af7a76ea24c91c81b8181ec347016ea4697fb67c34678ba CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5413e1e3283f356142b8a88492ace3c80e5c6837074c04109186f58e81837609 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1049550 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG ==== Package APPROVED! -- 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