https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1132603 Adam Jackson <ajax@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Adam Jackson <ajax@xxxxxxxxxx> --- ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ajax/fedora/dbxtool/1132603-dbxtool/licensecheck.txt [X]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses Artifact of doing the test build against F20 since F21 is still unsigned... [X]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib/systemd [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. [-]: 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. [X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [X]: 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. [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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Small enough not to matter. [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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]: 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: dbxtool-0.4-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm dbxtool-0.4-1.fc20.src.rpm dbxtool.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/vathpela/dbxtool/releases/download/dbxtool-0.4/dbxtool-0.4.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint dbxtool 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- dbxtool (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libefivar.so.0()(64bit) libpopt.so.0()(64bit) libpopt.so.0(LIBPOPT_0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- dbxtool: dbxtool dbxtool(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/vathpela/dbxtool/releases/download/dbxtool-0.4/dbxtool-0.4.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9a782ae550d2c2f1f550ed0b44acd78fa69415f5019e2955c485240ac284a602 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9a782ae550d2c2f1f550ed0b44acd78fa69415f5019e2955c485240ac284a602 Looks good, fedora-review+ -- 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