https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063044 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1063043 --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- So, all is great, apart from the lack of cdbs. ===== 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dh-autoreconf-9-1.fc20.noarch.rpm dh-autoreconf-9-1.fc20.src.rpm dh-autoreconf.noarch: E: devel-dependency gettext-devel I don't see why this should be wrong. dh-autoreconf.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libtool That's OK too. dh-autoreconf.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C debhelper add-on to call autoreconf and clean up after the build Bogus. dh-autoreconf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US addon -> ad don, ad-don, add on Ehh, rmplint spelling suggestions... dh-autoreconf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checksums -> check sums, check-sums, checks dh-autoreconf.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C For CDBS users, a rule is provided to call the dh-autoreconf programs at the right time. dh-autoreconf.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) debhelper -> deb helper, deb-helper, helper dh-autoreconf.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C debhelper add-on to call autoreconf and clean up after the build dh-autoreconf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debhelper -> deb helper, deb-helper, helper dh-autoreconf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US addon -> ad don, ad-don, add on dh-autoreconf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checksums -> check sums, check-sums, checks dh-autoreconf.src: E: description-line-too-long C For CDBS users, a rule is provided to call the dh-autoreconf programs at the right time. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 8 warnings. Nothing important here. Requires -------- dh-autoreconf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl autoconf automake cdbs debhelper gettext-devel libtool perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.2) perl(Debian::Debhelper::Dh_Lib) perl(strict) perl(warnings) Provides -------- dh-autoreconf: dh-autoreconf Source checksums ---------------- http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/dh-autoreconf/dh-autoreconf_9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ab94d8701c39ae572a1b5d9ceb00a81e95400e7e35a19e6fdc6f55d21dba2da2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ab94d8701c39ae572a1b5d9ceb00a81e95400e7e35a19e6fdc6f55d21dba2da2 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063043 [Bug 1063043] Review Request: cdbs - Common build system for Debian packages -- 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