https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057991 Dridi Boukelmoune <dridi.boukelmoune@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |knakayam@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(knakayam@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #13 from Dridi Boukelmoune <dridi.boukelmoune@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/dridi/fedora/_reviews/1057991-the_silver_searcher/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - Upstream version seems to be 0.21.0 (not 0.21) - Is /usr/share/the_silver_searcher/completions/ag.bashcomp.sh needed ? It's identical to /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/ag - License is probably something like ASL 2.0 and BSD - Missing the %checkout part in the changelog (is %checkout needed at all?) - BuildRequires of bash-completion should rely on "pkgconfig" instead https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PkgConfigBuildRequires Non issues: (do as you wish!) =========== - Maybe sort the "BuildRequires" alphabetically ? - Consider running the test suite in %check - %defattr present but not needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dridi/fedora/_reviews/1057991-the_silver_searcher/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/bash- completion(createrepo, bash-completion, rpmlint, yum, gvfs, glib2), /usr/share/bash-completion/completions(createrepo, firewalld, bash- completion, rpmlint, yum, gvfs, glib2) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 30720 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [?]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: the_silver_searcher-0.21.0-1.20140321git.fc21.x86_64.rpm the_silver_searcher-0.21.0-1.20140321git.fc21.src.rpm the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ack -> ac, ck, sack the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.21.0-1 ['0.21.0-1.20140321git.fc21', '0.21.0-1.20140321git'] the_silver_searcher.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ack -> ac, ck, sack the_silver_searcher.src: W: file-size-mismatch 0.21.0-0b293cc.tar.gz = 49409, https://github.com/ggreer/the_silver_searcher/archive/0b293cc94544e415642321ed1c0553f8bf0c0d68/0.21.0-0b293cc.tar.gz = 49289 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint the_silver_searcher the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ack -> ac, ck, sack the_silver_searcher.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.21.0-1 ['0.21.0-1.20140321git.fc21', '0.21.0-1.20140321git'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- the_silver_searcher (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) liblzma.so.5()(64bit) liblzma.so.5(XZ_5.0)(64bit) libpcre.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- the_silver_searcher: the_silver_searcher the_silver_searcher(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ggreer/the_silver_searcher/archive/0b293cc94544e415642321ed1c0553f8bf0c0d68/0.21.0-0b293cc.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fb86ae1d782c6b4fef7b06b9df38dc5947d73fb518ec4b43a64a5232b72aa3df CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c17b65337161d6ae32e5ff61d50027ea49d55317e60ea74082deb9e51cf20709 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 1057991 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, 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