https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169498 William Moreno <williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from William Moreno <williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== ===== MUST items ===== Generic: OK : Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. OK : License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. OK : Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. OK : Changelog in prescribed format. OK : Sources contain only permissible code or content. NA : Development files must be in a -devel package OK : Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. OK : Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). OK : Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK : Package does not generate any conflict. OK : Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. OK : If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. OK : Requires correct, justified where necessary. OK : Spec file is legible and written in American English. OK : Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. OK : update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. OK : gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. OK : Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. OK: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. OK : Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local OK : Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines OK : Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. OK : Package installs properly. OK : Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. OK : Package requires other packages for directories it uses. OK : Package must own all directories that it creates. OK : Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. OK : All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. OK : Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK : Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. OK : Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. OK : Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. OK : Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. OK : Package does not contain duplicates in %files. OK : Permissions on files are set properly. OK : Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. OK : Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. OK : Package do not use a name that already exist OK : Package is not relocatable. OK : Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK : Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. PK : File names are valid UTF-8. Python: OK : Binary eggs must be removed in %prep OK : Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. OK : A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. OK : Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Note: Test run failed OK : Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: OK : If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. OK : Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). OK : Package functions as described. OK : Latest version is packaged. OK : Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. OK : Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK : Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK : %check is present and all tests pass. OK : Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. OK : Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file OK : Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag OK : Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. OK : Buildroot is not present OK : Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) OK : Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). OK : No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. OK : SourceX is a working URL. OK : Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: OK : Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. OK : Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. OK : Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: retext-5.0.1-7.fc21.noarch.rpm retext-5.0.1-7.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.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 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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/project/retext/ReText-5.0/ReText-5.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a62f784f18bfcdad13969b8b15a8e92f57e930f23e93bfce1ab714e5ac77e939 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a62f784f18bfcdad13969b8b15a8e92f57e930f23e93bfce1ab714e5ac77e939 https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Retext/retext-man-de.po : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9b00b30a693a3023b2f5619ab0586ddf9bd8f5bc9b75c2dabd5d6493558bb6f7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9b00b30a693a3023b2f5619ab0586ddf9bd8f5bc9b75c2dabd5d6493558bb6f7 Cool, I am fine with the packaging and the app is working ok in my F21 =============== PACKAGE APROVED =============== -- 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