https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206639 --- Comment #4 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> --- [Human review below, for the items that were not part of auto-check.] Short ----- Just a few small items. (1) As Haïkel noted, please drop the 'Group' tags, they're not needed any more. (2) Trivial: Please fix these specific warnings (and obviously, ignore the ones flagged as 'spelling-error'): - 'wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding' warning by stripping the carriage returns by using the `sed` one-liners here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding - 'incorrect-fsf-address' -- It is indeed out of date, it's trivial, but it'd be nice to keep things updated. (3) %check: Upstream has 'tests' directory, Ihar, did you try to enable it? And, strictly speaking, we don't have to block the review on not having %check enabled -- we've done that in the past for many of the %OpenStack dependencies. (4) Can you please ensure the "Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable" aspect at the bottom of the review is taken care? More on it here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package (5) Timestamps: You might want to update the SPEC file to ensure timestamps are preserved? "When adding file copying commands in the spec file, consider using a command that preserves the files' timestamps, eg. cp -p or install -p." http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps And, I think we can safely ignore the last generic "EXTRA" item? Long ---- Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 463 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyapc/work/package- review/dibbler/licensecheck.txt - NOTE: You might want to notify upstream about the "incorrect FSF address", we don't hold up the package for this, though. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/dibbler, /usr/share/doc/dibbler/scripts, /usr/share/doc/dibbler, /usr/share/doc/dibbler/examples - NOTE: The above looks like false positive -- all the above directories are part of 'rpms-unpacked' [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/dibbler/examples, /usr/share/doc/dibbler/scripts, /etc/dibbler, /usr/share/doc/dibbler - NOTE (kashyap): The above looks like false positive -- all the above directories are part of 'rpms-unpacked' [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. [-]: 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. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ===== 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 dibbler- client , dibbler-relay , dibbler-requestor , dibbler-server , dibbler- docs , dibbler-common [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed -- 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