https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214834 --- Comment #2 from Jan Synacek <jsynacek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jaroslav Skarvada from comment #0) > I also moved files from /var/lib/ax25/fbb to /var/lib/fbb as the former > directory structure is not yet allowed by FHS, but the request has been > submitted and it may get into next FHS revisions. OK. > There is CRC implementation included, I am not sure whether it is problem > requiring bundling exception. I don't think that one simple implementation of CRC can be called bundling. No problem. (In reply to Jan Synacek from comment #1) > Issues: > ======= > - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > Note: warning: File listed twice: /var/lib/fbb > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles > - 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 %license. > Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text These should be solved. > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [ ]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) > [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. > > Generic: > [ ]: 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: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No > copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown > or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in > /home/jsynacek/work/reviews/fbb/1214834-fbb/licensecheck.txt > [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. OK. > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/ax25 I vaguely remember one package that had this problem as well. Is the directory owned by another package? > [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. OK. > [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. The package is not primarily a GUI application, but it does have a GUI. I leave the decision to include a desktop file to the packager. > [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package > [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. > [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. > [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. s/overrided/overridden/ in the spec, line 3. > [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > [ ]: 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 92160 bytes in 6 files. > [ ]: 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 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]: Dist tag is present. > [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 does not use a name that already exists. > [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 OK. > ===== 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. > [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in fbb-doc > [ ]: Package functions as described. > [ ]: Latest version is packaged. > [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > [ ]: 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. > [ ]: 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]: 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. OK. > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: fbb-7.0.8-0.1.beta.fc21.x86_64.rpm > fbb-doc-7.0.8-0.1.beta.fc21.noarch.rpm > fbb-gui-7.0.8-0.1.beta.fc21.x86_64.rpm > fbb-7.0.8-0.1.beta.fc21.src.rpm > fbb.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/fbb/COPYING Upstream has already been notified. > fbb.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ajoursat > fbb.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary satdoc > fbb.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary satupdat > fbb-gui.x86_64: W: no-documentation > fbb-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xfbbX_cl > fbb-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xfbbX > fbb-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xfbb No problem. > Comments on various things are on the way... I noticed that in the fbb.service, there is: ExecStart = /usr/sbin/fbb -f -l - I believe that the last argument is a typo, and should be "-N", since it's added by one of the patches. -- 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