https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157794 Christian Dersch <chrisdersch@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Christian Dersch <chrisdersch@xxxxxxxxx> --- Approved, should be fine :) Greetings, Christian Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package do not use a name that already exist Note: A package already exist with this name, please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/xpa See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ===> This is retired version of this package => fine ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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: "Unknown or generated". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lupinix/1157794-xpa/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/tcl8.6 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/tcl8.6 [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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 30720 bytes in 1 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 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 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 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: [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in xpa-devel , xpa-libs , xpa-tcl , xpa-doc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1843200 bytes in /usr/share [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: xpa-2.1.15-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm xpa-devel-2.1.15-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm xpa-libs-2.1.15-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm xpa-tcl-2.1.15-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm xpa-doc-2.1.15-2.fc22.noarch.rpm xpa-2.1.15-2.fc22.src.rpm xpa-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib xpa-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment xpa-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/xpa-libs/COPYING xpa-tcl.x86_64: W: no-documentation xpa-tcl.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tcl8.6/tclxpa/libtclxpa.so xpa-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/xpa-doc/COPYING 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. ===> Email sent to upstream => fine Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint xpa-tcl xpa-devel xpa xpa-doc xpa-libs xpa-tcl.x86_64: W: no-documentation xpa-tcl.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tcl8.6/tclxpa/libtclxpa.so xpa-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib xpa-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/xpa-doc/COPYING xpa-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment xpa-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/xpa-libs/COPYING 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ===> Email sent to upstream => fine Requires -------- xpa-tcl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libtclxpa.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) xpa-libs(x86-64) xpa-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libxpa.so.1()(64bit) xpa-libs(x86-64) xpa-tcl(x86-64) xpa (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libxpa.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tcl(abi) xpa-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): xpa-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- xpa-tcl: libtclxpa.so.1()(64bit) tcl-xpa xpa-tcl xpa-tcl(x86-64) xpa-devel: xpa-devel xpa-devel(x86-64) xpa: xpa xpa(x86-64) xpa-doc: xpa-doc xpa-libs: libxpa.so.1()(64bit) xpa-libs xpa-libs(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- xpa-tcl: /usr/lib64/tcl8.6/tclxpa/libtclxpa.so Source checksums ---------------- http://hea-www.harvard.edu/saord/download/xpa/xpa-2.1.15.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ac0e041f9115757fbcbfeb377cb5833544815a70f2b46f6edfbf6d1239ae690a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ac0e041f9115757fbcbfeb377cb5833544815a70f2b46f6edfbf6d1239ae690a Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1157794 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