https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235305 Sören Möller <soerenmoeller2001@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |soerenmoeller2001@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Sören Möller <soerenmoeller2001@xxxxxxxxx> --- I have tried to review your package. Note that this is only a comment, as I havn't the permissions to do a formal review yet, but I hope this will be helpfull for the real reviewer and you. Be aware that there are a few points on lie list below, which I was not able to check. ==Issues== -tests/certs contains the symlink cc2a776f, which points to a file sites.example.com, which does not exist -the tests could maybe be added to a %check section (for further issues see list below) Package Review ============== 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: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. The package includes a 2 clause BSD license as stated in the spec-file, but it is unclear if this holds for all source. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/scren/1235305-hitch/licensecheck.txt The package includes a 2 clause BSD license as stated in the spec-file, but it is unclear if this holds for all source. Some source files state other licenses or no license at all. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/hitch The package presumably should create and own this directory [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/hitch The package presumably should create and own this directory [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. Does not seem so, but I coulnd't verify it [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). For RHEL6 it uses export CFLAGS="-I/usr/include/libev" directly, but this might be necessary. No hard-coded paths for fedora. [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. [x]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 files. Documentation so smalL, thAt it should be fine [?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines I did not check everything [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]: 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. [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]: 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: [?]: Buildroot is not preset Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required Might want to remove %clean [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. No justification for the patches, apart from what can be guessed from the patch files' name [-]: 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. Only tested x86_64 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. No %check [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]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: hitch-1.0.0-0.3.beta3.fc23.x86_64.rpm hitch-1.0.0-0.3.beta3.fc23.src.rpm hitch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unencrypted -> encrypted hitch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end hitch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicore -> multicolored hitch.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hitch-openssl hitch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unencrypted -> encrypted hitch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end hitch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicore -> multicolored 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: hitch-debuginfo-1.0.0-0.3.beta3.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- hitch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unencrypted -> encrypted hitch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end hitch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicore -> multicolored hitch.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hitch-openssl 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- hitch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(hitch) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.2)(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libev.so.4()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) openssl rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd-units Provides -------- hitch: config(hitch) hitch hitch(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/varnish/hitch/archive/00b264b5537986fecfa1013cc27ad3b7b771a646/hitch-00b264b5537986fecfa1013cc27ad3b7b771a646.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4ce39f89d4567ab04199a1f41eedfd253165cb2baf3b797ea5def5dfac23a269 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4ce39f89d4567ab04199a1f41eedfd253165cb2baf3b797ea5def5dfac23a269 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1235305 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 -- 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