https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 --- Comment #5 from Tomas Hozza <thozza@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Luboš Uhliarik from comment #4) > 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [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. > [!]: 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", "Public +domain ISC", "BSD > (3 > clause) ISC", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause) ISC", "ISC", "BSD (2 > clause)". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck > in /tmp/1199428-bind99/licensecheck.txt > - multiple licences in source files, but only license in SPEC file > - some of source files don't have any license All software from ISC is released under ISC license. https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/ Based on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm." Using licensecheck on files installed by binary RPMs I see there ISC, Public domain and BSD. So I changed the license to ISC and BSD and Public Domain. I also added explanation as a comment before License: field. > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/include/bind99, /usr/lib64/bind99 Thanks for catching this. I added those to the %files section > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/bind99, > /usr/lib64/bind99 > - please solve permissions for directories /usr/include/bind99 and > /usr/lib64/bind99 same as the above. > [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. > [x]: 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. > [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > - option --localstatedir in SPEC file in %configure part uses hardcoded > directory > name (/var), use macro %{_localstatedir} instead fixed > [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. > [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 440320 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. > [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]: No %config files under /usr. > [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). > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > bind99-libs > , bind99-license , bind99-devel > [ ]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > [ ]: 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. > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [ ]: 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: > [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros > Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. > See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools BIND is used on different platforms and also on old versions of different Operating Systems. Since this is "just" should point, I'll leave this up to the upstream to decide which m4 macros they use. > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is > arched. > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: bind99-libs-9.9.7-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm > bind99-license-9.9.7-2.fc21.noarch.rpm > bind99-devel-9.9.7-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm > bind99-9.9.7-2.fc21.src.rpm > bind99-license.noarch: W: no-documentation > bind99-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > bind99-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > bind99.src: E: summary-too-long C The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) > DNS (Domain Name System) server libraries > > - please shorten the summary fixed. > bind99.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/ <urlopen > error timed out> > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Updated SPEC and SRPM: https://thozza.fedorapeople.org/bind99/bind99.spec https://thozza.fedorapeople.org/bind99/bind99-9.9.7-3.fc21.src.rpm -- 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