https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096082 --- Comment #5 from Petr Lautrbach <plautrba@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles ===== 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. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/crypto-policies [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/crypto-policies [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 [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: 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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [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 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]: 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 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]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: crypto-policies-0.9-2.20140519gitf15621a.fc21.noarch.rpm crypto-policies-0.9-2.20140519gitf15621a.fc21.src.rpm crypto-policies.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic crypto-policies.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2-20140519gitf15621a ['0.9-2.20140519gitf15621a.fc21', '0.9-2.20140519gitf15621a'] crypto-policies.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/DEFAULT.settings crypto-policies.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/LEGACY.settings crypto-policies.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/FUTURE.settings crypto-policies.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic crypto-policies.src: W: invalid-url Source0: crypto-profiles-gitf15621a.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint crypto-policies crypto-policies.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic crypto-policies.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2-20140519gitf15621a ['0.9-2.20140519gitf15621a.fc21', '0.9-2.20140519gitf15621a'] crypto-policies.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/DEFAULT.settings crypto-policies.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/LEGACY.settings crypto-policies.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/crypto-policies/profiles/FUTURE.settings 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- crypto-policies (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh Provides -------- crypto-policies: crypto-policies Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1096082 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, 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