https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178911 --- Comment #4 from Jan Pokorný <jpokorny@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Briefly: - minor BSD-licensed file discovered - some dates in changelog would deserve fixing Below I commented also on some items that are OK: > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - 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. > Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > - 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/cairo-dock > See: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names I am not sure here, I suppose the existing orhpaned package will get un-retired (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/cairo-dock/) > > ===== 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. cairo-dock-core: /usr/lib64/cairo-dock/libcd-Help.so ... but this is not a development .so, and is correctly in private subdir Furthermore, CMakeList.txt makes it clear it is a special plugin for cairo-dock that cannot be packaged in extra plug-ins package. > [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. You mentioned there were some concerns in the past but now it was ACK'd by spot. It would be best if it there was a public record of that, couldn't find anything on fedora-legal/fedora-devel MLs. Only that it is better to have a transparency in this regard. IIUIC, the patent stuff is being removed prior to creating the resulting source tarball thanks cairo-dock-create-fedora-tarball.sh. > [!]: 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)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (unversioned/unknown > version) GPL (v3)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 13 files > have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mock > /cairo-dock/1178911-cairo-dock/cairo-dock/licensecheck.txt Everything seems OK except for BSD license of cairo-dock-3.4.0/cmake_modules/GNUInstallDirs.cmake which refers to BSD license of CMake (and, as per instructions in the header, it should be included in full in that very file!), which turns to be BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" license. Hence I think the license should be: GPLv3+ and BSD Alternatively, a fact that native CMake version exists can be utilized: $ rpm -qf /usr/share/cmake/Modules/GNUInstallDirs.cmake cmake-3.0.2-2.fc21.x86_64 > [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. This doesn't seem to be true, e.g., one may install cairo-dock-libs and miss the licenses/* files. > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Perhaps %cmake macro is robust enough so thar -O3 -> -O2 in CMakeLists.txt is not necessary? > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. OK except rpmlint reports: cairo-dock.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Thu Dec 21 2011 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 2.4.0.2-2 cairo-dock.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Sat Nov 6 2009 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 2.1.1.2-1 cairo-dock.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Wed May 27 2008 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.5.6-1.date20080528 > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: %defattr present but not needed ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > [x]: 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). (/sbin/ldconfig based on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries contradicts a bit, and there is no macro for that command) > [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. note wrt. cairo-dock, one can still install just cairo-dock-{core,libs} and then particular plugins, so this is OK > [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 3 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]: 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 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 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. Related to the possible BSD issue (License field in the package spec...) > [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 cairo-dock- > libs , cairo-dock-core , cairo-dock-devel > [x]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. > [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments > [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. This sound merely like nice-to-have :) > [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. Haven't verified this. > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. Tests are present in tests subdir, but perhaps impractical to run. > [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file > [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: cairo-dock-3.4.0-9.fc21.x86_64.rpm > cairo-dock-libs-3.4.0-9.fc21.x86_64.rpm > cairo-dock-core-3.4.0-9.fc21.x86_64.rpm > cairo-dock-devel-3.4.0-9.fc21.x86_64.rpm > cairo-dock-3.4.0-9.fc21.src.rpm > cairo-dock.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) themable -> them able, them-able, fathomable > cairo-dock.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage > cairo-dock-core.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US themable -> them able, them-able, fathomable > cairo-dock.x86_64: E: no-binary This cannot be noarch as then no subpackage cannot be reverted to "arch" (was experimenting with something similar for clufter). > cairo-dock.x86_64: W: no-documentation > cairo-dock-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation > cairo-dock-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > cairo-dock-core.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided cairo-dock-plug-ins-gecko > cairo-dock-core.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided cairo-dock-themes justified > cairo-dock-core.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/cairo-dock-core/copyright OK for now, to be discussed with upstream as per [comment 1]. > cairo-dock-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib non-versioned lib symlink to versioned one > cairo-dock.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) themable -> them able, them-able, fathomable > cairo-dock.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage not sure if there is any strong preference in other packages; themable OK (~parsable, movable). > cairo-dock.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Thu Dec 21 2011 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 2.4.0.2-2 > cairo-dock.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Sat Nov 6 2009 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 2.1.1.2-1 > cairo-dock.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Wed May 27 2008 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.5.6-1.date20080528 might be worth fixing otherwise it will be reported over and over in any (local) rebuild, etc. > 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 11 warnings. -- 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