https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100409 Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Quite a good job, Florian! Things I don't explicitly mention here are fine. (In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #1) > This is an *INFORMAL* package-review > > [!] koij-build is missing ---> That's no real neccessity… But mostly welocmed by reviewers, so they have a proof the pkg does *at least* build successful before starting the review. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MPL > (v2.0)". > 8 files have unknown license. > ---> Note about license is missing in all files in /libixion-0.7.0/bin/ ---> That's not the real point about the license check. ;) There are a lot of packages with files, that don't have any license-header in them. The real point is to e.g. get some evidence about bundled libs and such. As long as the license-tag in spec-file matches the actual license from COPYING / LICENSE and the corresponding source-files everything is fine. There are some cases, when a different license doesn't need to be inside license-tag. For this one it is the file called `ltmain.sh`, which is part of the autotools buildsys and doesn't get installed by the resulting packages. btw. the files inside that ./bin/ dir are used for invoking the testsuite during %check. The also don't get installed by the resulting binary-pkgs. > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > ---> COPYING is not installed for subpackages ---> COPYING is in main-pkg, which is fine. The other subpackages do have a requirement for the mainpkg: `%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}` So the file gets installed with the mainpkg even when one installes the devel or tools pkg. > [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > ---> use %{_sbindir} instead of /sbin/ ---> since /sbin/ is part of the FHS and used only in %post{in,un} everthing is fine about that. The way that sniplet is used is even documentet this way in [1]. > [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> If you find issues in the package, you usually wouldn't check this `PASS`. ^^ > [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. ---> That's where the koji-build comes in handy. Since the reported didn't do one, did you to assure yourself? > [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > ---> add -p to the install commands ---> One may do this, but in this special case I don't see any *strong* reason for it. The man-pages, which are installed by the invocation of `install`, in question are generated on the fly during %build, using `help2man`, so the timestamp won't be the same during two different builds. If those would have been static files with a fixed timestamp, I'd strongly agree upon using the `-p`-switch on install. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries -- 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