https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 --- Comment #5 from William Moreno <williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in retext See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- database ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: 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. [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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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. [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 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: %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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: retext-5.0.1-6.fc21.noarch.rpm retext-5.0.1-6.fc21.src.rpm retext.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) reStructuredText -> restructured Text, restructured-text, restructure retext.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found de retext.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reStructuredText -> restructured Text, restructured-text, restructure retext.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/de/man1/retext.1.gz retext.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/wpgen.1.gz retext.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/retext.svg retext.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/de/man1/wpgen.1.gz retext.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/retext.1.gz retext.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) reStructuredText -> restructured Text, restructured-text, restructure retext.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reStructuredText -> restructured Text, restructured-text, restructure retext.src: W: file-size-mismatch ReText-5.0.1.tar.gz = 140814, http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ReText-5.0/ReText-5.0.1.tar.gz = 15857 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Requires -------- retext (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python3 hicolor-icon-theme python(abi) python3-docutils python3-enchant python3-markdown python3-markups python3-qt5 qt5-qtwebkit Provides -------- retext: appdata() appdata(retext.appdata.xml) application() application(retext.desktop) mimehandler(text/x-markdown) mimehandler(text/x-rst) retext Source checksums ---------------- https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Retext/retext.1 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 300f04c1f808f63351b16ed0fa0f2d01b857c4d096ed71dcf54ab95281727d9a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 300f04c1f808f63351b16ed0fa0f2d01b857c4d096ed71dcf54ab95281727d9a https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Retext/wpgen.1 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 12f23b81cd4e96b95481d8754fa0c37ad31d9d352053481b1b7d3bb187c4ba23 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 12f23b81cd4e96b95481d8754fa0c37ad31d9d352053481b1b7d3bb187c4ba23 http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ReText-5.0/ReText-5.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a62f784f18bfcdad13969b8b15a8e92f57e930f23e93bfce1ab714e5ac77e939 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 64037f31ac4f87350df20fdc627e824b3a727c948c822e9f70770c8b035774ac https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Retext/retext-man-de.po : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9b00b30a693a3023b2f5619ab0586ddf9bd8f5bc9b75c2dabd5d6493558bb6f7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9b00b30a693a3023b2f5619ab0586ddf9bd8f5bc9b75c2dabd5d6493558bb6f7 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1169498 Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG ============================================ 1- I got a diff with the SOURCE0 and the Source in the src.rpm, can be a problem with the source url. 2- There are many warnings in rpmlint about executables files under /usr/man this can be set with install -m 644 3- Please use only %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the spec, not both 4- If retext will be asociated with a file format please update the update-desktop-database with MineType. ============================================ Sorry for the late feedback, my hard drive has failed and I needed to use the warranty of the computer where I build and I was offline around a week :( -- 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