[Bug 1151462] Review Request: belen - GUI of youtube-dl command

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151462



--- Comment #5 from Carlos Morel-Riquelme <morel.riquelme@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
  contains icons.
  Note: icons in belen
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
  file-validate if there is such a file.


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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 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 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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:
[ ]: 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: %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]: 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: belen-0.1-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
          belen-0.1-2.fc21.src.rpm
belen.noarch: W: no-documentation
belen.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/belen.svg
belen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary belen
belen.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary
/usr/share/applications/belen.desktop ruby
belen.src: W: strange-permission belen.rb 0666L
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint belen
belen.noarch: W: no-documentation
belen.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/belen.svg
belen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary belen
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
belen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python
    ruby
    rubygem-gtk3
    youtube-dl



Provides
--------
belen:
    application()
    application(belen.desktop)
    belen



Source checksums
----------------
https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.rb :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
4e15dee1ae012b6fe5bd3b09fe9e4b82b913db92bb76bc28af9a317667fe0aae
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
4e15dee1ae012b6fe5bd3b09fe9e4b82b913db92bb76bc28af9a317667fe0aae
https://n0oir.fedorapeople.org/belen.svg :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
c926f69237e42ab1079670d648cc24fc1deb685433fbe3b7b3143d7a578cf0a7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
c926f69237e42ab1079670d648cc24fc1deb685433fbe3b7b3143d7a578cf0a7


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-21-x86_64 -b 1151462
Buildroot used: fedora-21-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


note: belen.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/belen.svg ?
shebang is a icon file ?

-- 
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





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]