https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076186 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- [+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue ** Mandatory review guidelines: ** [+] rpmlint output: [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm ../SPECS/openstv.spec ./openstv-1.7-1.fc20.src.rpm openstv.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/openstv/License.html openstv.src: W: strange-permission openstv-1.7-setup-package-data.patch 0600L openstv.src: W: strange-permission openstv-1.7-setup-package-data.patch 0600L 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. [asinha@ankur-laptop SRPMS]$ Please inform upstream of the wrong address. [+] License is acceptable (...) [+] License field in spec is correct [?] License files included in package %docs if included in source package The License isn't installed as a doc. It's installed with the rest of the python files. Does it need to be placed there for functioning of the software? Otherwise, please consider shifting it to docdir. [-] License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed [-] Spec written in American English [+] Spec is legible [-] Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues Upstream SHA256: ... Your SHA256: ... [+] Build succeeds on at least one primary arch [+] Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed [+] BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary [-] Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/* [-] %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files [+] No bundled libs [-] Relocatability is justified [+] Package owns all directories it creates [+] Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own [+] No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files [+] File permissions are sane [+] Package contains permissible code or content [-] Large docs go in -doc subpackage [+] %doc files not required at runtime [-] Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides [-] Development files go in -devel package [-] -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa [+] No .la files [+] GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install [+] File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification [+] File names are valid UTF-8 ** Optional review guidelines: ** [?] Query upstream about including license files Already included. Should be fine. [-] Translations of description, summary [+] Builds in mock [+] Builds on all arches [?] Functions as described (e.g. no crashes) Not tested. Please ensure it works. [+] Scriptlets are sane [-] Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible [-] .pc file subpackage placement is sensible [+] No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin [+] Include man pages if available Naming guidelines: [+] Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+ [+] Package names are sane [+] No naming conflicts [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] Version is sane [+] Version does not contain ~ [+] Release is sane [+] %dist tag [+] Case used only when necessary [-] Renaming handled correctly Packaging guidelines: [+] Useful without external bits [+] No kmods [-] Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep [+] Sources contain only redistributable code or content [+] Spec format is sane [+] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target [+] No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17 [+] Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run [+] Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17 [+] No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local [+] Changelog in prescribed format [+] No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags [+] Summary does not end in a period [-] Correct BuildRoot tag on < EL6 [-] Correct %clean section on < EL6 [+] Requires correct, justified where necessary [+] Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly [+] All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc [+] Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x) [-] Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc [-] Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise [-] PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs [-] Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified [-] Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6 [+] No static executables [-] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs [-] Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config [+] No config files under /usr [-] Third party package manager configs acceptable, in %_docdir [+] .desktop files are sane [?] Spec uses macros consistently You've used $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at one location. Consider changing it to buildroot, for consistency. [+] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate [-] Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed [-] %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work [-] Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time [-] Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir [-] No software collections (scl) [-] Macro files named /etc/rpm/macros.%name [+] Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs [+] %global, not %define [-] Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it [-] Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel [-] File ops preserve timestamps [-] Parallel make [+] No Requires(pre,post) notation [-] User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups) [-] Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www [-] Conflicts are justified [+] One project per package [+] No bundled fonts [?] Patches have appropriate commentary Please comment the patch. [-] Available test suites executed in %check [-] tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15 ** Python guidelines: ** [+] Runtime Requires correct [-] Python macros declared on < EL6 [+] All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts [+] Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated [-] Provides/Requires properly filtered [-] Code that invokes gtk.gdk.get_pixels_array() Requires numpy Not many issues. Just cosmetics primarily. Can I please request you to include and install an appdata file in the package for gnome-software? Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur -- 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