https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199829 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in gtk-theme-config See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache See that page - you're missing the postrans part. - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 Remove the BR for gcc. - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros This needs fixing. - All patches should have a comment linking to an upstream bug report or otherwise justifying why they're needed. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment - The %autosetup macro makes application of patches simpler andcould be used here. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25autosetup - Various rpmlint issues - details below. Various issues are also detailed below - please read carefully. ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1199829-gtk-theme- config/licensecheck.txt gtk-theme-config.vala has no license specified - you need to work with upstream to clarify this. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses That directory is owned by the filesystem package, but I don't think it's necessary to Require that package [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. CFLAGS isn't being set all all by the make file. You need something like: make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="%{optflags}" However, it's not obvious to me how valac is calling gcc - there's no output in build.log from gcc. [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]: 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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines See above. [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]: 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: [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required Remove this [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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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: gtk-theme-config-0.1-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm gtk-theme-config-0.1-2.fc22.src.rpm gtk-theme-config.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Little tool to configure GTK theme colors. Remove the "." gtk-theme-config.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/gtk-theme-config False positive gtk-theme-config.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gtk-theme-config This needs remedying - please work with upstream to ship a man page. gtk-theme-config.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Little tool to configure GTK theme colors. Remove the "." gtk-theme-config.src:59: W: macro-in-%changelog %license Use %%license in the changelog 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- gtk-theme-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libX11.so.6()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- gtk-theme-config: application() application(gtk-theme-config.desktop) gtk-theme-config gtk-theme-config(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/satya164/gtk-theme-config/archive/ebbba827a5d979e8b8e6dc2a4831ab806976a6de/gtk-theme-config-ebbba827a5d979e8b8e6dc2a4831ab806976a6de.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f01de39d68af06ba931e8f18c93bfe299452caae159f614397bff9d3d8d9cd5b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f01de39d68af06ba931e8f18c93bfe299452caae159f614397bff9d3d8d9cd5b Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1199829 -m fedora-22-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-22-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