https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951827 Christopher Meng <cickumqt@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng <cickumqt@xxxxxxxxx> --- 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [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 10240 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: 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 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [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]: 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]: 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). fonts: [!]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find ttname command, install ttname package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined [x]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. Note: repo-font-audit analyze results in /home/rpmaker/Desktop/alef- fonts/fonts directory. Rpmlint ------- Checking: alef-fonts-1.0-2.fc21.noarch.rpm alef-fonts-1.0-2.fc21.src.rpm alef-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti alef-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint alef-fonts alef-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- alef-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(alef-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- alef-fonts: alef-fonts config(alef-fonts) font(:lang=aa) font(:lang=an) font(:lang=ay) font(:lang=bi) font(:lang=br) font(:lang=bs) font(:lang=ca) font(:lang=ch) font(:lang=co) font(:lang=crh) font(:lang=cs) font(:lang=csb) font(:lang=cy) font(:lang=da) font(:lang=de) font(:lang=en) font(:lang=es) font(:lang=et) font(:lang=eu) font(:lang=fi) font(:lang=fil) font(:lang=fj) font(:lang=fo) font(:lang=fr) font(:lang=fur) font(:lang=fy) font(:lang=gd) font(:lang=gl) font(:lang=gv) font(:lang=he) font(:lang=ho) font(:lang=hr) font(:lang=hsb) font(:lang=ht) font(:lang=hu) font(:lang=ia) font(:lang=id) font(:lang=ie) font(:lang=io) font(:lang=is) font(:lang=it) font(:lang=jv) font(:lang=kj) font(:lang=ku-tr) font(:lang=kwm) font(:lang=lb) font(:lang=lg) font(:lang=li) font(:lang=lt) font(:lang=lv) font(:lang=mg) font(:lang=mh) font(:lang=ms) font(:lang=mt) font(:lang=nb) font(:lang=nds) font(:lang=ng) font(:lang=nl) font(:lang=nn) font(:lang=no) font(:lang=nr) font(:lang=nso) font(:lang=ny) font(:lang=oc) font(:lang=om) font(:lang=pap-an) font(:lang=pap-aw) font(:lang=pl) font(:lang=pt) font(:lang=rm) font(:lang=rn) font(:lang=ro) font(:lang=rw) font(:lang=sc) font(:lang=se) font(:lang=sg) font(:lang=sk) font(:lang=sl) font(:lang=sma) font(:lang=smj) font(:lang=smn) font(:lang=sn) font(:lang=so) font(:lang=sq) font(:lang=ss) font(:lang=st) font(:lang=su) font(:lang=sv) font(:lang=sw) font(:lang=tk) font(:lang=tl) font(:lang=tn) font(:lang=tr) font(:lang=ts) font(:lang=uz) font(:lang=vo) font(:lang=vot) font(:lang=wa) font(:lang=wen) font(:lang=wo) font(:lang=xh) font(:lang=yap) font(:lang=yi) font(:lang=za) font(:lang=zu) font(alef) Source checksums ---------------- http://alef.hagilda.com/Alef.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : aae9b927858a1dbc56f371ac893af09348031e21c2ef0b94115ce5915d6ec990 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aae9b927858a1dbc56f371ac893af09348031e21c2ef0b94115ce5915d6ec990 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rvn alef-fonts-1.0-2.fc20.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG ------------------------------------ IMO no need to BR dos2unix to approach the hack, please take a look and use sed to replace the current via: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding And don't forget to tell upstream to fix. BTW if possible you can write the summary and decsription in Hebrew. PACKAGE APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: 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