https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226664 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=1229412 Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- ===== 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. MIT two-clause. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause) ISC", "Unknown or generated". 118 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1226664 -fido-pi/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 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 ===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. The binaries run. I didn't verify that they do useful things. [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. [-]: %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]: 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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: fido-pi-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.fc23.x86_64.rpm fido-pi-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.fc23.src.rpm fido-pi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) proteomics -> Proterozoic fido-pi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proteomics -> Proterozoic fido-pi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary FidoChooseParameters fido-pi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Fido fido-pi.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) proteomics -> Proterozoic fido-pi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proteomics -> Proterozoic 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: fido-pi-debuginfo-0-0.1.20150209git281e4d.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- fido-pi.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) proteomics -> Proterozoic fido-pi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US proteomics -> Proterozoic fido-pi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary FidoChooseParameters fido-pi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Fido 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- fido-pi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- fido-pi: fido-pi fido-pi(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hendrikweisser/Fido/archive/281e4d1e85bc3d0f82f52dd04083d4dd2d1969b6.zip#/Fido-281e4d1e85bc3d0f82f52dd04083d4dd2d1969b6.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fef8bcb6ae4f7e20d7a72dba5450bce92b1a00362da3a29ddf279d808c14e34d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fef8bcb6ae4f7e20d7a72dba5450bce92b1a00362da3a29ddf279d808c14e34d Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1226664 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Package is 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