https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1236300 Christian Dersch <lupinix@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch <lupinix@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- First run done, there are some things todo: 1.) Code contains GPLv3+ files, so the whole license has to be GPLv3+ 2.) Please check if you need mozilla-filesystem as a requirement 3.) Inform upstream about missing license file 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. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. ===> OK, is the Mozilla plugin [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. [-]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/review/1236300-GarminPlugin/licensecheck.txt ====> Package is GPLv3+, not GPLv2+ [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/mozilla(mozilla- filesystem), /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins(mozilla-filesystem) ====> Maybe you need mozilla-filesystem as a dep [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. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. ====> See above, mozilla-filesystem required? [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 40960 bytes in 3 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]: 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. ====> Please inform upstream about missing license file [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. ====> I don't have a Garmin device to test [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. [-]: 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]: 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: GarminPlugin-0.3.26-0.1.fc23.x86_64.rpm GarminPlugin-0.3.26-0.1.fc23.src.rpm GarminPlugin.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Garmin -> Margin, Gamin, Arming GarminPlugin.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US garmin -> margin, gamin, arming GarminPlugin.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Garmin -> Margin, Gamin, Arming GarminPlugin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US garmin -> margin, gamin, arming GarminPlugin.src:34: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 34, tab: line 1) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: GarminPlugin-debuginfo-0.3.26-0.1.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- GarminPlugin.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Garmin -> Margin, Gamin, Arming GarminPlugin.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US garmin -> margin, gamin, arming 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- GarminPlugin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): garmintools(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgarmintools.so.4()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcrypt.so.20()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.20(GCRYPT_1.6)(64bit) libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtinyxml.so.0()(64bit) libusb-0.1.so.4()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- GarminPlugin: GarminPlugin GarminPlugin(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- GarminPlugin: /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/npGarminPlugin.so ====> We have a Mozilla plugin here, so unversioned so-file is ok Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/adiesner/GarminPlugin/archive/V0.3.26.tar.gz#/GarminPlugin-0.3.26.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6092985843961fe366a3a35446a29e81680fed6bc0a452c1495213e9826eea95 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6092985843961fe366a3a35446a29e81680fed6bc0a452c1495213e9826eea95 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1236300 -L deps 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 Built with local dependencies: /home/review/deps/garmintools-debuginfo-0.10-5.1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/review/deps/garmintools-devel-0.10-5.1.fc23.x86_64.rpm /home/review/deps/garmintools-0.10-5.1.fc23.x86_64.rpm -- 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