https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151464 --- Comment #7 from Christian Dersch <chrisdersch@xxxxxxxxx> --- Detailed review below :) There are two (small) points I want to discuss. One is the documentation already mentioned by Raphael. Can you explain if the part below is still required? At least my buildsystem the manual installation of the doc isn't a requirement and I think no current Fedora needs it. > > > > # Install additional docs > > > install -p -m 644 COPYING.txt LIESMICH.txt README.txt doc/authors.txt \ > > > %{buildroot}%{_pkgdocdir} > > > > This is not needed and should be handled in %files section with the %doc tag: > > %files > > %doc COPYING.txt LIESMICH.txt README.txt doc/authors.txt > > If I did that on older version of rpm, I would have wiped out the doc > already installed by "make install". > The second point: Please add a comment on zlib licensed files in your spec. The License tag itself is fine. Now the detailed review: 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/packaging/1151464-ballerburg/licensecheck.txt ==> See comment above, no unclear files now. But please mention the zlib licensed files as a comment in spec file. Whole package is GPLv3+ of course. [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in ballerburg [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 81920 bytes in 6 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 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. [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 ===== 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. [-]: %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. [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]: 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: ballerburg-1.1.0-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm ballerburg-1.1.0-2.fc22.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ballerburg 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ballerburg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ballerburg: application() application(ballerburg.desktop) ballerburg ballerburg(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://download.tuxfamily.org/baller/ballerburg-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fddf26dcc11b58885740e7e8e4e7ce8c3d3feca88a005914d0a558546467aca9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fddf26dcc11b58885740e7e8e4e7ce8c3d3feca88a005914d0a558546467aca9 http://baller.tuxfamily.org/king.png : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1e82f4db17785e489e805fc2b9e043578a696d1fba8943e5951c11a30f8202f7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1e82f4db17785e489e805fc2b9e043578a696d1fba8943e5951c11a30f8202f7 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1151464 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 -- 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
