https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1196353 Christian Dersch <lupinix@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch <lupinix@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package looks fine to me, there are two details to be fixed before SCM import: * The package should be noarch * Please fix the "mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs" warning rpmlint found Solution: Approved! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 %doc. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ****** Not an issue, package uses %license macro as recommended now ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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 [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: 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. 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]: 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. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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. [-]: 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. ***** Note: IMHO the package should be noarch [-]: %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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) ***** Diff doesn't matter here [-]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: itop-20150225git6dbb3c42-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm itop-20150225git6dbb3c42-1.fc23.src.rpm itop.x86_64: E: no-binary itop.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary itop itop.src: W: no-%build-section itop.src:4: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 4) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. ***** Error is a false positive as we have a script here, but please fix the mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs before you import the package Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/review/1196353-itop/srpm/itop.spec 2015-02-25 20:33:28.236134874 +0100 +++ /home/review/1196353-itop/srpm-unpacked/itop.spec 2015-02-25 20:01:48.000000000 +0100 @@ -33,3 +33,3 @@ %changelog * Wed Feb 25 2015 Florian Lehner <dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> 20150225git6dbb3c42-1 -- Initial packaging (#1196353) +- Initial packaging Requires -------- itop (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/perl perl(Getopt::Long) perl(IO::File) perl(Term::Cap) Provides -------- itop: itop itop(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/kargig/itop/archive/6dbb3c421af11972eba90ef71f2279567730fcc9/itop-6dbb3c421af11972eba90ef71f2279567730fcc9.tar.gz#/itop-20150225git6dbb3c42.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 671c03245c4c5c1cda6d499a21e097a8cf4c33fe51f39513d2a6d7abb85aac37 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 671c03245c4c5c1cda6d499a21e097a8cf4c33fe51f39513d2a6d7abb85aac37 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1196353 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- 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