https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058038 --- Comment #18 from Jeff Backus <jeff.backus@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Pavol Ipoth from comment #17) > This is the spec file: > > http://www.symphaty.org/files/systeminfo.spec > > and src.rpm which works for EPEL5,6, fedora: > > http://www.symphaty.org/files/systeminfo-1.2-1.el5.src.rpm Hi Pavol, Sorry for the long delay. I have reviewed the latest spec. Spec looks good, as far as I'm concerned. Please provide links to Koji builds for all supported platforms. *** INFORMAL *** review results: 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 45 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/storage/homes/jeff/tmp/reviews/systeminfo/pass3 /review-systeminfo/licensecheck.txt Package contains a LICENSE file with license matching license field. [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 40960 bytes in 2 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release} See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag Buildroot only included when building for EPEL 5. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Source package includes LICENSE file. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. Verified on x86_64 running Fedora 20. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: systeminfo-1.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm systeminfo-1.2-1.fc20.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint systeminfo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- systeminfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python config(systeminfo) dbus-python hwdata python python(abi) python-dmidecode Provides -------- systeminfo: config(systeminfo) systeminfo Source checksums ---------------- http://www.symphaty.org/files/systeminfo-1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f2cbb45693572a45d968760790b31515977f4f8419ff97dd1803da66110b6070 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f2cbb45693572a45d968760790b31515977f4f8419ff97dd1803da66110b6070 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n systeminfo Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG Final Comments: As I said above, things look good to me. Unfortunately, I don't have the authority to approve it. Please post the koji links for EL5, EL6, Fedora 19, Fedora 20, and Fedora 21. Whoever does a formal review will probably want to see them. Nice work and good luck! Regards, Jeff -- 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