https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 Andrea Veri <andrea.veri@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Comment #9 from Andrea Veri <andrea.veri@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - The doc/ directory is > than 1M in size, please consider moving it to its own sub-package. - The licenses breakdown should be more detailed, please provide a PACKAGE-LICENSING file containing a list of files (you can ideally use directories and wildcards if you prefer making sure that specific dir has no files licensed under a different license than the one you are listing) and their respective license. - The package ships with 5 LICENSE files but none is showing under %license, ideally we'd want them renamed to something like LICENSE.$LICENSE_NAME on %license given we're targeting EPEL 7. (which should not need any patch for the new %license field to work properly as per https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411) - As Orion pointed out /var/www/mediawiki123 contains a mw-config dir and within it another mw-config dir in the form of a symlink. - File includes/libs/jsminplus.php seems to be triple licensed (MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1) but no mention of it appears under License. - Latest release is not installed, the chosen release seems to be a LTS which makes sense for our target. This comment is purely informative. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [X]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 (we're targeting EPEL 7 which ships with rpm 4.11.1) [-]: 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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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. [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. [X]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Perl: [X]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires: "use {strict,warnings,Data::Dumper,Cwd" were found and they do match the provided Requires. Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [X]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [X]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [X]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. The release we are packaging is a LTS which makes sense for the target we have in mind. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: 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. [X]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [X]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. ===== RESOLUTION ===== Please correct all the items marked as *issues* and provide a new spec file. Resolution: Package NOT approved. -- 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