https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222926 Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz <claudiorodrigo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz <claudiorodrigo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 1045 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /media/galileo/fedora/1222926-nunit/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit- console-runner(mono-nunit, nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit.framework (mono-nunit, nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit.util(mono-nunit, nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit.mocks(mono-nunit, nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit.core.interfaces(mono-nunit, nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit.core(mono-nunit, nunit) [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. [x]: 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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: [x]: 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 nunit- docs , nunit-devel [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. [?]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3082240 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nunit-2.6.4-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm nunit-docs-2.6.4-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm nunit-devel-2.6.4-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm nunit-2.6.4-1.fc23.src.rpm nunit.x86_64: E: no-binary nunit.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nunit.x86_64: W: no-documentation nunit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nunit-gui26 nunit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nunit-console26 nunit-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nunit-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- nunit.x86_64: E: no-binary nunit.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nunit.x86_64: W: no-documentation nunit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nunit-gui26 nunit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nunit-console26 nunit-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nunit-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- nunit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh mono(System) mono(System.Configuration) mono(System.Drawing) mono(System.Runtime.Remoting) mono(System.Windows.Forms) mono(System.Xml) mono(mscorlib) mono(nunit-console-runner) mono(nunit-gui-runner) mono(nunit.core) mono(nunit.core.interfaces) mono(nunit.framework) mono(nunit.uiexception) mono(nunit.uikit) mono(nunit.util) nunit-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config nunit pkgconfig nunit-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nunit Provides -------- nunit: mono(nunit) mono(nunit-console) mono(nunit-console-runner) mono(nunit-gui-runner) mono(nunit.core) mono(nunit.core.interfaces) mono(nunit.framework) mono(nunit.mocks) mono(nunit.uiexception) mono(nunit.uikit) mono(nunit.util) nunit nunit(x86-64) nunit-devel: nunit-devel nunit-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(nunit) nunit-docs: nunit-docs nunit-docs(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/nunit/nunitv2/archive/2.6.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d5d3ed8d4f811b33f07ede67025dbcf1c4949e076130489a292002bee73e68b1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d5d3ed8d4f811b33f07ede67025dbcf1c4949e076130489a292002bee73e68b1 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1222926 --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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