https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186964 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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 (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1186964-courier- unicode/licensecheck.txt Upstream specified GPLv3 as the license, as does .spec, so everything seems fine. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required Should be removed unless it'll be build for old EPELs. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed Same comment as before. [-]: 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]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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: 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]: 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]: 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. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed Same comment as above. [-]: 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in courier- unicode-devel %{?_isa} should be added, to make sure that -devel is always installed with the matching main package. [ ]: Package functions as described. Didn't test it, but it looks OK. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: 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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [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: courier-unicode-1.1-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm courier-unicode-devel-1.1-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm courier-unicode-1.1-2.fc22.src.rpm courier-unicode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US titlecase -> title case, title-case, telecast courier-unicode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grapheme -> ephemera courier-unicode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iconv -> icon, icons, icon v courier-unicode.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C * Look up uppercase, lowercase, and titlecase equivalents of a unicode character. courier-unicode.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The current release of the Courier Unicode library is based on the Unicode 6.3.0 standard. courier-unicode-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libunicode -> Unicode courier-unicode-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libunicode -> Unicode courier-unicode-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib courier-unicode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US titlecase -> title case, title-case, telecast courier-unicode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grapheme -> ephemera courier-unicode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iconv -> icon, icons, icon v courier-unicode.src: E: description-line-too-long C * Look up uppercase, lowercase, and titlecase equivalents of a unicode character. courier-unicode.src: E: description-line-too-long C The current release of the Courier Unicode library is based on the Unicode 6.3.0 standard. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 9 warnings. OK. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- courier-unicode (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) courier-unicode-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): courier-unicode Provides -------- courier-unicode: courier-unicode courier-unicode(x86-64) libunicode.so.1()(64bit) courier-unicode-devel: courier-unicode-devel courier-unicode-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://sourceforge.net/projects/courier/files/courier-unicode/1.1/courier-unicode-1.1.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a10e61d20f3bf25bebdec495dea54258948f333a29f29a7f155a31f9bfb3f56c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a10e61d20f3bf25bebdec495dea54258948f333a29f29a7f155a31f9bfb3f56c http://sourceforge.net/projects/courier/files/courier-unicode/1.1/courier-unicode-1.1.tar.bz2.sig : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2c016d1015acc3112cf67032d184bd1f0db75be34c483e571062e55a6ce90501 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2c016d1015acc3112cf67032d184bd1f0db75be34c483e571062e55a6ce90501 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1186964 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8976108 There are some suggestions and one minor issue listed above. Please take into consideration and/or fix. Package is 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