https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197520 Sandro Mani <manisandro@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani <manisandro@xxxxxxxxx> --- Looks good! I'll approve right away, there are only a handful of issues to consider before importing: xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin/COPYING xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin.src: W: strange-permission xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin.spec 0600L => These should be fixed, the COPYING issue reported upstream make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} could be replaced by %make_install Also, have a look at the rpmlint output on the installed packages. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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. [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. [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) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sandro/Desktop/1197520-xfce4-pulseaudio- plugin/licensecheck.txt [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. [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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin [x]: 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 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. ===== 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). [?]: 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. [-]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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. [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: xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin-0.1.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin-0.1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin/COPYING xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin.src: W: strange-permission xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin.spec 0600L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit) libdbus-glib-1.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpulse-mainloop-glib.so.0()(64bit) libpulse-mainloop-glib.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libpulse.so.0()(64bit) libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit) libxfce4panel-2.0.so.4()(64bit) libxfce4ui-2.so.0()(64bit) libxfce4util.so.7()(64bit) libxfconf-0.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin: libpulseaudio-plugin.so()(64bit) xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin: /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/libpulseaudio-plugin.so Source checksums ---------------- http://archive.xfce.org/src/panel-plugins/xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin/0.1/xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin-0.1.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 40d89abf23edeea0aa35dd6c24579c4fc1ec909c3a6915161e8ec6abef5f4827 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 40d89abf23edeea0aa35dd6c24579c4fc1ec909c3a6915161e8ec6abef5f4827 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1197520 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