https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166897 Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated 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/mono-nat See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ---> Package exists in pkgdb, but is retiered. This is a revive-review. ===== 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1166897-mono-nat/licensecheck.txt ---> According to licensecheck the license is fine. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: %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). ---> Execption for /usr/lib/ with Mono. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. ---> -devel-pkg as explained below. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. ---> Empty debuginfo [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. ---> There are arches known which are not working with Mono… ---> BuildArch: %{mono_arches} [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> Issues are present. [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 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]: 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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. ---> Parallel-makejob fails. Bug is commented in spec-file. [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ---> Cannot find any evidence on upstream's bug-tracker… [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mono-nat- devel ---> Fix the Requires of the -devel-pkg as shown above, please. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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]: 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: mono-nat-1.1.0-3.fc22.x86_64.rpm mono-nat-devel-1.1.0-3.fc22.x86_64.rpm mono-nat-1.1.0-3.fc22.src.rpm mono-nat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uPnP -> upon mono-nat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pmp -> ppm, pm, pp mono-nat.x86_64: E: no-binary mono-nat.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mono-nat.x86_64: W: no-documentation mono-nat-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mono-nat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation mono-nat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uPnP -> upon mono-nat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pmp -> ppm, pm, pp mono-nat.src:2: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@x220 /]# rpmlint mono-nat-devel mono-nat mono-nat-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mono-nat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation mono-nat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uPnP -> upon mono-nat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pmp -> ppm, pm, pp mono-nat.x86_64: E: no-binary mono-nat.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mono-nat.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@x220 /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mono-nat-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config mono-nat pkgconfig mono-nat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mono(System) mono(System.Xml) mono(mscorlib) Provides -------- mono-nat-devel: mono-nat-devel mono-nat-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(mono.nat) mono-nat: mono(Mono.Nat) mono-nat mono-nat(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://projects.qnetp.net/attachments/download/76/mono-nat-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 34095f6524f9e6bebe0b696d76fbfcaba84cfe3ac04f811ba9d37fe14ba0bca1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 34095f6524f9e6bebe0b696d76fbfcaba84cfe3ac04f811ba9d37fe14ba0bca1 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1166897 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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 ===== Solution ===== **NOT** approved, fix them issues and I'll have another run. -- 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