https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178912 --- Comment #11 from Jan Pokorný <jpokorny@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Only MUST items for now: > ===== 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. All unversioned, but in private subdir (plugins). > [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one > supported primary architecture. > Note: Using prebuilt packages > [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. Hopefully all infringing files (graphics) were pointed out. > [x]: 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)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No > copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF > address)", "GPL (v3 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or > later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v3)". 18 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mock/build-10/cairo- > dock-plug-ins-3.4.0-10.fc/cairo-dock-plug-ins/licensecheck.txt > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Technically, this is not true: only cairo-dock-plug-ins binary RPM contains the %license files, other subpackages are not. > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > Note: Using prebuilt rpms. > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. See "Package is licensed with an open-source compatible [...]" > [x]: 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]: 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. > [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 215040 bytes in 28 files. Personally I would be considering whether demo code shouldn't be placed in extra -devel package, but seems fine also under the root package. > [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > [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]: 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 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 > > Python: > [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. > [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should > provide egg info. > [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep -- 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