https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206901 Christian Dersch <lupinix@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Christian Dersch <lupinix@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Looks fine, approved! 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 license.txt in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ====>> False positive, package uses %license which is fine - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2652160 bytes in 30 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation =====> False positive imho, packaging is fine ===== 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. ====> Is ok according to link in spec [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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. 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 installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. [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: [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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 dreamweb- doc , dreamweb-us , dreamweb-uk , dreamweb-fr , dreamweb-de , dreamweb-it , dreamweb-es ====> Everything ok [x]: 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. ====> is noarch [-]: %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]: 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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dreamweb-common-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm dreamweb-doc-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm dreamweb-us-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm dreamweb-uk-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm dreamweb-fr-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm dreamweb-de-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm dreamweb-it-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm dreamweb-es-1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm dreamweb-1.1-1.fc23.src.rpm ***** rpmlint output in attachment, very huge ***** ====> All warnings are false positive, the dangling symlinks are resolved by dependency to dreamweb-common in spec Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- dreamweb-es (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dreamweb-common dreamweb-it (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dreamweb-common dreamweb-fr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dreamweb-common dreamweb-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dreamweb filesystem scummvm dreamweb-uk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dreamweb-common dreamweb-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dreamweb-de (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dreamweb-common dreamweb-us (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dreamweb-common Provides -------- dreamweb-es: application() application(dreamweb-es.desktop) dreamweb dreamweb-es dreamweb-it: application() application(dreamweb-it.desktop) dreamweb dreamweb-it dreamweb-fr: application() application(dreamweb-fr.desktop) dreamweb dreamweb-fr dreamweb-common: dreamweb-common dreamweb-uk: application() application(dreamweb-uk.desktop) dreamweb dreamweb-uk dreamweb-doc: dreamweb-doc dreamweb-de: application() application(dreamweb-de.desktop) dreamweb dreamweb-de dreamweb-us: application() application(dreamweb-us.desktop) dreamweb dreamweb-us Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-cd-es-1.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1f10045952d2348d2775c05c0b95ff4f35c60d6e9be109893157ef63d4444803 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1f10045952d2348d2775c05c0b95ff4f35c60d6e9be109893157ef63d4444803 http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-cd-uk-1.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4a6f13911ce67d62c526e41048ec067b279f1b378c9210f39e0ce8d3f2b80142 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4a6f13911ce67d62c526e41048ec067b279f1b378c9210f39e0ce8d3f2b80142 http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-cd-fr-1.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 76fff0ba67f5bcf2dde9c3fb3f5d3d5c017bb0e7368d98d9deee83d1b4182d54 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 76fff0ba67f5bcf2dde9c3fb3f5d3d5c017bb0e7368d98d9deee83d1b4182d54 http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-cd-de-1.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2d42fbf5dd3a58ea98ebb5c9bb33f3d5b70e92a936013248f67c33f1b82ac74b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2d42fbf5dd3a58ea98ebb5c9bb33f3d5b70e92a936013248f67c33f1b82ac74b http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-cd-it-1.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7363d5f6b5aa380862d185980f50e7ac7c661cccdc3f1132f525d92bf4c47f51 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7363d5f6b5aa380862d185980f50e7ac7c661cccdc3f1132f525d92bf4c47f51 http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-manuals-en-highres.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6d26dbc9c032dfe00211065c31d738a2135aefdf561934722e1ca6e3416ff769 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6d26dbc9c032dfe00211065c31d738a2135aefdf561934722e1ca6e3416ff769 http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-manuals-en-lores.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1ec5b7374d3f67367ea670e0dd830f5d8cc8c0dbc508f2d093a14a47274212b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1ec5b7374d3f67367ea670e0dd830f5d8cc8c0dbc508f2d093a14a47274212b http://downloads.sf.net/scummvm/dreamweb-cd-us-1.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f403d95e847b0fe2cde9b86cd2cf835826c6b759c3691f0ee456cacb0948dc94 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f403d95e847b0fe2cde9b86cd2cf835826c6b759c3691f0ee456cacb0948dc94 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1206901 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, 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