https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204898 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- ===== 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: "WTFPL", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* BSD", "ISC", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1204898-libntirpc/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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 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 ===== 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libntirpc- devel This should be added. The -devel package is only good with the main package for the same arch (because of the .so symlink). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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. [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: [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: libntirpc-1.2.1-1.fc23.i686.rpm libntirpc-devel-1.2.1-1.fc23.i686.rpm libntirpc-1.2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm libntirpc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtirpc -> librettist libntirpc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vc -> cc, v, c libntirpc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US callouts -> callous, cal louts, cal-louts libntirpc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recv -> rec, rev, recd libntirpc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xprt -> expert libntirpc-devel.i686: W: no-documentation libntirpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtirpc -> librettist libntirpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vc -> cc, v, c libntirpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US callouts -> callous, cal louts, cal-louts libntirpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US recv -> rec, rev, recd libntirpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xprt -> expert OK. libntirpc.src: W: strange-permission ntirpc-1.2.1.tar.gz 0444L A bit strange indeed, but not really harmful. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- libntirpc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libntirpc libntirpc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6 libpthread.so.0 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libntirpc-devel: libntirpc-devel libntirpc-devel(x86-32) libntirpc: libntirpc libntirpc(x86-32) libntirpc.so.1 Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/nfs-ganesha/ntirpc/archive/v1.2.1/ntirpc-1.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : efcf3be4bfc9b659019fa183f7ff7ef38160e72ca222158fad4b14dd97411a69 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : efcf3be4bfc9b659019fa183f7ff7ef38160e72ca222158fad4b14dd97411a69 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -o=--no-clean -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1204898 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 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 Everything looks good except for the one issue with the Requires described above. Please fix that before pushing. Package is 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