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
