https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112434 Benedikt Morbach <bmorbach@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bmorbach@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Benedikt Morbach <bmorbach@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Note: This is an unofficial/preliminary review > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > ===== 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. > [x]: 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)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bmorbach > /fedora-review/1112434-brd/licensecheck.txt > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, > /usr/lib/python3.4 those are okay, owned by python3 on rawhide (see bug 1112409) > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, > /usr/lib/python3.4 see above > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [-]: 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). > [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Please do a release and package that or add the date of the commit you are packaging to the Release field as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag > [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. > [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [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 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: No rpmlint messages. > [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]: 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]: 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 > > Python: > [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. > [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should > provide egg info. > [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep > > ===== 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. > [-]: 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. > [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [x]: %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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: brd-1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm > brd-1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > # rpmlint brd > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > > Requires > -------- > brd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/python3 > > > > Provides > -------- > brd: > brd > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/jsbackus/brd/archive/f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07/brd-f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1d9f54b8d8972717f7e6cb41979d8eff46d812f5ff9034abebeaf7067d1ed38 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1d9f54b8d8972717f7e6cb41979d8eff46d812f5ff9034abebeaf7067d1ed38 > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1112434 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api > Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, 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