https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186501 --- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- - -doc is a standalone package that must include a license file. - Files LGPLv2+ licensed are not involved in the compilation. Therefore no additional license is required. - %{_pkgdocdir} (/usr/share/doc/libticables2 expanded) is not owned. - /usr/lib/udev/rules.d and /usr/lib/udev are directories owned by systemd. They should not be owned by this package. But /usr/include/tilp2 is included in libticonv-devel package that seems not required by this package. I think /usr/include/tilp2 may be co-owned between libticonv-devel and libticables2-devel. - %define macros are still used. - Tests are available. Please, check. 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 COPYING in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1186501-libticables2/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/libticables2, /usr/include/tilp2 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev, /usr/share/doc/libticables2, /usr/include/tilp2, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d [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. [-]: 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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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 [!]: 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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libticables2-doc [ ]: Package functions as described. [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. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define tilp_version 1.17, %define _udevdir %{_prefix}/lib/udev/rules.d [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: 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: libticables2-1.3.4-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm libticables2-devel-1.3.4-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm libticables2-doc-1.3.4-1.fc23.noarch.rpm libticables2-1.3.4-1.fc23.src.rpm libticables2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ticables -> ti cables, ti-cables, timetables libticables2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US handhelds -> handholds, handhold libticables2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libticables -> impracticable libticables2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libticables2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libticables2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ticables -> ti cables, ti-cables, timetables libticables2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US handhelds -> handholds, handhold 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- libticables2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libticables2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libticables2(x86-64) pkgconfig(glib-2.0) libticables2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libticables2: libticables2 libticables2(x86-64) libticables2.so.6()(64bit) libticables2-devel: libticables2-devel libticables2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(ticables2) libticables2-doc: libticables2-doc Source checksums ---------------- http://sourceforge.net/projects/tilp/files/tilp2-linux/tilp2-1.17/libticables2-1.3.4.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 45cae91ad9ee1cc2ebc0f5865923ff77f1e0adf0793d3010eeb802efc140e5b0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 45cae91ad9ee1cc2ebc0f5865923ff77f1e0adf0793d3010eeb802efc140e5b0 http://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/69-libticables.rules : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e14a08b6a0c03f55c0f44de79de8896f0be5e8f7ccd5dd94f800c798f4fe79f8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e14a08b6a0c03f55c0f44de79de8896f0be5e8f7ccd5dd94f800c798f4fe79f8 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1186501 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