https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151842 --- Comment #3 from Eduardo Mayorga <e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - The spec from srpm and URL differ. - You are not preserving the timestamps; use -p parameter with cp. - Escape % character in %description. ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/reviews/1151842-apx/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: apx (description) [-]: 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. [-]: 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 10240 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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. [x]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: apx-0-0.1.20141010git853fdd0.fc22.noarch.rpm apx-0-0.1.20141010git853fdd0.fc22.src.rpm apx.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apx apx.src:49: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint apx apx.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apx 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/makerpm/reviews/1151842-apx/srpm/apx.spec 2014-10-26 11:42:49.570693509 -0600 +++ /home/makerpm/reviews/1151842-apx/srpm-unpacked/apx.spec 2014-10-12 08:12:29.000000000 -0600 @@ -19,5 +19,5 @@ BuildRequires: python2 python2-devel python-setuptools BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils python2 -#FIXME Requires: pygtk2 +#Requires: pygtk2 %description Requires -------- apx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh python(abi) Provides -------- apx: application() application(apx.desktop) apx Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/projecthamster/apx/archive/853fdd0/apx-853fdd0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b62d2d0d16210b26aa1fca6e9464c5b3264f44482ae1f5a54d4e97ff8c01eab4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b62d2d0d16210b26aa1fca6e9464c5b3264f44482ae1f5a54d4e97ff8c01eab4 https://camo.githubusercontent.com/e5a26552ee632107f0031b5ca06f521a720b94fd/68747470733a2f2f6661726d382e737461746963666c69636b722e636f6d2f373433342f31333832333837383333355f653234326163316332335f6f2e706e67#/apx.png : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 80076450fea8ea8cc09bca06e7f4a093fbb2f3bd81724bda204bfa21d5673de5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 80076450fea8ea8cc09bca06e7f4a093fbb2f3bd81724bda204bfa21d5673de5 -- 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
