[Bug 1222926] Review Request: nunit - unit-testing framework for .Net/mono

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222926

Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz <claudiorodrigo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+ fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #18 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz <claudiorodrigo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Now it is OK to me.

===== 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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[x]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
     contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
     Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in nunit
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
     contains icons.
     Note: icons in nunit
[-]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nunit-
     doc
[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-2.6.4-7.fc23.x86_64.rpm
          nunit-doc-2.6.4-7.fc23.x86_64.rpm
          nunit-devel-2.6.4-7.fc23.x86_64.rpm
          nunit-2.6.4-7.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
nunit.src: W: strange-permission nunit-gui.sh 0755L
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No existe el fichero o el directorio
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(x86-64)
    pkgconfig

nunit-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    nunit



Provides
--------
nunit:
    application()
    application(nunit.desktop)
    mimehandler(application/octet-stream)
    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-doc:
    nunit-doc
    nunit-doc(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 -m 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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]