https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182548 Haïkel Guémar <karlthered@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |karlthered@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |karlthered@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar <karlthered@xxxxxxxxx> --- According dependencies, it will only build on rawhide onwards, so using %license macro without fallback is ok. I hereby approve this package into Fedora Packages Collection, since it complies with Fedora guidelines. Please submit a SCM request. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1182548-gnome- taquin/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/HighContrast/24x24/apps, /usr/share/icons/HighContrast/256x256, /usr/share/help, /usr/share/icons/HighContrast/32x32, /usr/share/icons/HighContrast/22x22, /usr/share/icons/HighContrast/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/HighContrast/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/HighContrast, /usr/share/icons/HighContrast/48x48, /usr/share/icons/HighContrast/22x22/apps, /usr/share/icons/HighContrast/16x16, /usr/share/icons/HighContrast/48x48/apps, /usr/share/help/C, /usr/share/icons/HighContrast/256x256/apps, /usr/share/icons/HighContrast/24x24 [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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has *.gschema.xml files. Note: gschema file(s) in gnome-taquin [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in gnome-taquin [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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 ===== 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. [x]: 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. [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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 13424640 bytes in /usr/share gnome- taquin-3.15.3-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm:13424640 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gnome-taquin-3.15.3-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm gnome-taquin-3.15.3-1.fc22.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@zangetsu /]# rpmlint gnome-taquin 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@zangetsu /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- gnome-taquin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librsvg-2.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- gnome-taquin: appdata() appdata(gnome-taquin.appdata.xml) application() application(gnome-taquin.desktop) gnome-taquin gnome-taquin(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://download.gnome.org/sources/gnome-taquin/3.15/gnome-taquin-3.15.3.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 50fbd87237c55a61c06d247f4b1d5dd6f946a1b52f42fc5f824889e87583a987 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 50fbd87237c55a61c06d247f4b1d5dd6f946a1b52f42fc5f824889e87583a987 -- 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