https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187628 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tradej@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(tradej@xxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Note: This is just the consequence of the next point [!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. rpmlint: devassistant-dap-ruby.src:43: W: macro-in-%changelog %license Use %%license ore drop pre-git changelog entries when importing to git. ===== 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package Note: In this case, I consider the DevAssistant packages as "notable exception to this packaging model" as mentioned in guidelines [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Note: See other issues for explanation. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 %license. [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. [!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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. [-]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: 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). [?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: devassistant-dap-ruby-0.10.0-4.fc22.noarch.rpm devassistant-dap-ruby-0.10.0-4.fc22.src.rpm devassistant-dap-ruby.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Kickstarts -> Kick starts, Kick-starts, Kicks tarts devassistant-dap-ruby.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Kickstarts -> Kick starts, Kick-starts, Kicks tarts devassistant-dap-ruby.src:43: W: macro-in-%changelog %license 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Seem OK, except the macro in changelog. Requires -------- devassistant-dap-ruby (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): devassistant-dap-common_args devassistant-dap-git devassistant-dap-github devassistant-dap-vim devassistant-ui Provides -------- devassistant-dap-ruby: devassistant-dap-ruby Source checksums ---------------- https://dapi.devassistant.org/download/ruby-0.10.0.dap : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9ef8f738047106c4c0eef12c20e3b49b23916861faf898247e3913d3bd16da6c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9ef8f738047106c4c0eef12c20e3b49b23916861faf898247e3913d3bd16da6c Package NOT APPROVED. -- 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