https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899 --- Comment #12 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1100899-ratools/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl ---> please add a comment with some justification about this. Information supplied in Comment #6 might be useful… https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100899#c6 [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> issues are present. [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]: 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: [-]: 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. [-]: 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. ---> see: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6912545 [-]: %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. [!]: SourceX is a working URL. ---> please append '#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz' to Source0, to get a properly named source-tarball. A file named v%{version}.tar.gz might be anything and might cause troubles because of it's non-unique naming-scheme. After this change the use of `spectool -g [-R] ratools.spec` will give you a properly named src-tarball automatically. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ratools-0.5.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm ratools-0.5.2-1.fc21.src.rpm ratools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti ratools.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl ratools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rad ratools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ractl ratools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ratools ratools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti ratools.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/bash_completion.d/ractl ratools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rad ratools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ractl 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ---> please install the man-page provided in src-tarball to %{_mandir}/man1 and include it with the package. Requires -------- ratools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(ratools) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ratools: config(ratools) ratools ratools(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/danrl/ratools/archive/v0.5.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 70118519b7c01e37b4f33ea27ed4d1208c8271734bd0f219e52340fdc18393ab CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 70118519b7c01e37b4f33ea27ed4d1208c8271734bd0f219e52340fdc18393ab Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1100899 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 ===== Solution ===== NOT approved. Please fix-up those named issues and I'll have another review. ------------------------------------------------------------------- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #11) > I think noreplace is not needed for bash completion file. I do think so… bash-completion-files need to be updated (even if customized) with the binaries, since CLI-switches might change between different versions. -- 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