https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076 shilpa gite <sgite@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sgite@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from shilpa gite <sgite@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi, I am doing Unofficial Review.Following are my review details: Package Review ============== ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [OK]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8276403 [OK]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [OK]: 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. [BAD]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Unknown or generated -------------------- jlibrtp-0.2.2svn252/demo/org/jlibrtp/demo/SoundReceiverDemo.java jlibrtp-0.2.2svn252/demo/org/jlibrtp/demo/SoundSenderDemo.java jlibrtp-0.2.2svn252/test/org/jlibrtp/test/TestRTPSession.java jlibrtp-0.2.2svn252/test/org/jlibrtp/test/protocols/rtp/TestRTPURLMultiSender.java jlibrtp-0.2.2svn252/test/org/jlibrtp/test/protocols/rtp/TestRTPURLReceiver.java jlibrtp-0.2.2svn252/test/org/jlibrtp/test/protocols/rtp/TestRTPURLSender.java [OK]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [OK]: Changelog in prescribed format. [OK]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [N/A]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [N/A]: Development files must be in a -devel package [OK]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [OK]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [OK]: Package does not generate any conflict. [N/A]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [N/A]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [OK]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [OK]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [OK]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [N/A ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [OK]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Cannot unpack rpms (using --prebuilt?) [OK]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [OK]: Package installs properly. [OK]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages Rpmlint ------- Checking: jlibrtp-0.2.2-1.20141122svn252.fc21.src.rpm jlibrtp.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name} jlibrtp.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{rev} jlibrtp.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jlibrtp-0.2.2svn252.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [OK]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [OK]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [OK]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [OK]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [OK]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [OK]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [OK]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [OK]: Permissions on files are set properly. [OK]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [OK]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [OK]: Package do not use a name that already exist [OK]: Package is not relocatable. [OK]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [OK]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [OK]: File names are valid UTF-8. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [BAD]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [OK]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [OK]: Package functions as described. [N/A]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [OK]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [OK]: %check is present and all tests pass. [OK]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [OK]: Buildroot is not present [OK]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [OK]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [OK]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [OK]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [OK]: SourceX is a working URL. [OK]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. -- 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