https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222926 --- Comment #9 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz <claudiorodrigo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz from comment #8) > ===== 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. nunit-gui need a desktop file > [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 Need add %{?_isa} to devel package. > [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