https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199055 Andrea Veri <andrea.veri@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Andrea Veri <andrea.veri@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - There are a good bunch of LICENSE and COPYING files (all of them seem to be GPLv2 texts) around and we have the license text for the GPLv2 license under %licenses already. Please get rid of the extra LICENSE and COPYING files. - CC-BY-SA is mentioned on the License field but not on the breakdown, please fix. - The keys.txt and the tarball signature are not used at build time as you could assume when seeing them on their respective Source field, please document what they are used for on the spec. - The includes/libs/jsminplus.php file is correctly marked as being triple licensed on the breakdown but the License field still doesn't list it appropriately. (i.e License: GPLv2+ and Public Domain and CC-BY-SA and MIT and ASL 2.0 and BSD and GPLv3+ and (GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+ or MPL)) - The breakdown lists LGPLv2.1+, please refer to LGPLv2+ as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses, as that's the correct short_name for the license in question. ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed: the -doc subpackage depends on the main package, please make sure to not drop the dependency or in case that will be needed make sure the licenses are added to the subpackage as well. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec: a PACKAGE-LICENSING is used for this. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 [-]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires: "use {strict,warnings,Data::Dumper,Cwd" were found and they do match the provided Requires. Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. The release we are packaging is a LTS which makes sense for the target we have in mind. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream: upstream included multiple LICENSE and COPYING files in presence of several licenses as documented on both the License field and the license breakdown. All these files have been removed and each license has been moved to its own file in the format of LICENSE.$LICENSE_NAME and added under %licenses. [-]: 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 ===== As a note, the mw-config issue is fixed: /var/www/mediawiki123 lists: `-- mediawiki123 |-- api.php -> /usr/share/mediawiki123/api.php |-- cache |-- extensions -> /usr/share/mediawiki123/extensions |-- images | `-- README |-- includes -> /usr/share/mediawiki123/includes |-- index.php -> /usr/share/mediawiki123/index.php |-- languages -> /usr/share/mediawiki123/languages |-- load.php -> /usr/share/mediawiki123/load.php |-- maintenance -> /usr/share/mediawiki123/maintenance |-- mw-config -> /usr/share/mediawiki123/mw-config and /usr/share/mediawiki123/mw-config is there with the following files: -rw-r--r--. 1 averi averi 2063 Dec 17 21:21 index.php -rw-r--r--. 1 averi averi 984 Dec 17 21:21 index.php5 -rw-r--r--. 1 averi averi 2542 Dec 17 21:21 overrides.php That said, please correct all the items marked as *issues* above before importing the package. Resolution: Package 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