https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194330 --- Comment #6 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg@xxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. - 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 kate4-part See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- database ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [?]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. ===> /usr/lib64/kde4/katepart.so is unversioned, is that okay? [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. 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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "LGPL (v2)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2)", "LGPL", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)". 680 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora- review/1194330-kate4/licensecheck.txt ===> There are a lot of files without any embedded license text. Please check them carefully. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/kde4/apps/katepart/script/libraries/emmet(kate-part), /usr/share/kde4/apps/katepart/script/libraries(kate-part), /usr/share/kde4/apps/katepart/script(kate-part), /usr/share/kde4/apps/katepart/syntax(kate-part, kalgebra), /usr/share/kde4/apps/katepart/script/files/quickcoding/cpp(kate-part), /usr/share/kde4/apps/katepart/script/commands(kate-part), /usr/share/kde4/apps/katepart(kate-part, kalgebra), /usr/share/kde4/apps/katepart/script/indentation(kate-part), /usr/share/kde4/apps/katepart/script/files(kate-part), /usr/share/kde4/apps/katepart/script/files/quickcoding(kate-part) ===> Should be okay cause of Provides: kate*, Conflicts: kdelibs* and Obsoletes: kate-part [x]: %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. [-]: 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. [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. ===> Should be okay, cause it is a compat package. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files. [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]: 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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. ===> Not tried. Did you do a koji scratch build for rawhide? [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define obsoletes_evr 4.14.3-10 ===> Please correct that and use %global instead. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 6000640 bytes in /usr/share ===> Please create a subpackage kate4-data for those files living in %{_datadir} . [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: kate4-part-4.14.3-11.fc23.x86_64.rpm kate4-4.14.3-11.fc23.src.rpm kate4-part.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kpart -> kart, part, apart kate4-part.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kpart -> kart, part, apart ===> Okay. Obviously false positives. kate4-part.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/kde4/apps/katepart/script/indentation/lilypond.js ===> Did you report that to upstream? 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: ===> ?? Requires -------- kate4-part (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtDBus.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libQtScript.so.4()(64bit) libQtSvg.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libkatepartinterfaces.so.4()(64bit) libkcmutils.so.4()(64bit) libkdecore.so.5()(64bit) libkdeui.so.5()(64bit) libkio.so.5()(64bit) libknewstuff3.so.4()(64bit) libkparts.so.4()(64bit) libktexteditor.so.4()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- kate4-part: kate-part kate-part(x86-64) kate4-part kate4-part(x86-64) libkatepartinterfaces.so.4()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- kate4-part: /usr/lib64/kde4/katepart.so ===> Why is that without version? Could it interfere somehow with kate? Source checksums ---------------- http://download.kde.org/stable/4.14.3/src/kate-4.14.3.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 513d4ae2c36fa6b59caf3b2b685e3ea1167093d16025859cfac90d75617e707d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 513d4ae2c36fa6b59caf3b2b685e3ea1167093d16025859cfac90d75617e707d Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -o=--yum --clean -b 1194330 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 -- 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