https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233989 Gerald Cox <gbcox@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Gerald Cox <gbcox@xxxxxx> --- Apparently, this issue was being caused by a changes that have been made to dnf. I found: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244531 and applied the update which appears to have fixed this particular issue; however, I commented in the ticket that while I was testing I found other packages which previously passed review fine are now showing errors. In any event, it's working now, so I'm approving this before something else breaks... ;-) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed FALSE POSITIVES: - W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) [...listed below...] SHOULD: - %check is present and all tests pass. - W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Same situation that occurred in rhbz#1233984 - If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ===== MUST items ===== 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]: 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: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gbcox/bugzilla_fedora_review/1233989 -gap-pkg-aclib/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: gap-pkg-aclib-1.2-2.fc24.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-aclib-1.2-2.fc24.src.rpm gap-pkg-aclib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nilpotent -> nil potent, nil-potent, Omnipotent gap-pkg-aclib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cyrstallographic -> crystallographic, crystallography, photographically gap-pkg-aclib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US polycyclic -> poly cyclic, poly-cyclic, polyclinic gap-pkg-aclib.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gap-pkg-aclib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nilpotent -> nil potent, nil-potent, Omnipotent gap-pkg-aclib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cyrstallographic -> crystallographic, crystallography, photographically gap-pkg-aclib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US polycyclic -> poly cyclic, poly-cyclic, polyclinic 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory gap-pkg-aclib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nilpotent -> nil potent, nil-potent, Omnipotent gap-pkg-aclib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cyrstallographic -> crystallographic, crystallography, photographically gap-pkg-aclib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US polycyclic -> poly cyclic, poly-cyclic, polyclinic gap-pkg-aclib.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- gap-pkg-aclib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/update-gap-workspace gap-core Provides -------- gap-pkg-aclib: gap-pkg-aclib Source checksums ---------------- http://www.icm.tu-bs.de/~beick/soft/aclib/aclib-1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e4d315864677ca7f000ae322cdd58a265f5efe9c2e0e1eafcd531ff02bd1dd7e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e4d315864677ca7f000ae322cdd58a265f5efe9c2e0e1eafcd531ff02bd1dd7e Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1233989 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, 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