https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239267 Sören Möller <soerenmoeller2001@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |soerenmoeller2001@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 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. As far as I can see the packages fullfills all the relevant "MUST" parts of the packaging guidelines. In relation to the "SHOULD" parts, it is missing a %check setion, but it looks as if there are no test cases included in the source. I locally only build on x86_64, but i made a Koji build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10355885 which seems to go fine on x86_64, i686 and armv7. I also successfully installed innoextract on my x86_64 rawhide machine and tested the functioning of innoextract on one test case: http://mlaan2.home.xs4all.nl/ispack/isetup-5.5.5.exe which is the Inno Setup installer from http://www.jrsoftware.org/download.php on this test case the extraction works out fine. 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: [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [-]: 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 20480 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]: 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 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. LICENSE file included [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. I tested one test case with success [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. 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]: 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: innoextract-1.4-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm innoextract-1.4-6.fc23.src.rpm innoextract.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Inno -> In no, In-no, Inn innoextract.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Inno -> In no, In-no, Inn innoextract.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Inno -> In no, In-no, Inn innoextract.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Inno -> In no, In-no, Inn innoextract.src:22: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 22) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: innoextract-debuginfo-1.4-6.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- innoextract.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Inno -> In no, In-no, Inn innoextract.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Inno -> In no, In-no, Inn 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- innoextract (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libboost_filesystem.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_iostreams.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_program_options.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.57.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) liblzma.so.5()(64bit) liblzma.so.5(XZ_5.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- innoextract: innoextract innoextract(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://constexpr.org/innoextract/files/innoextract-1.4/innoextract-1.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5a494b5ae1e41043574096761d31695ed8b1d39dfe64895306d0d92623901cc9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5a494b5ae1e41043574096761d31695ed8b1d39dfe64895306d0d92623901cc9 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1239267 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