https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193990 František Dvořák <valtri@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from František Dvořák <valtri@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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]: 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 51200 bytes in 6 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in opencity-data [x]: Package functions as described. Works OK: built a nice city :-) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: opencity-0.0.6.5-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm opencity-data-0.0.6.5-3.fc24.noarch.rpm opencity-0.0.6.5-3.fc24.src.rpm opencity.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/opencity/COPYING opencity-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: opencity-debuginfo-0.0.6.5-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- opencity.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/opencity/COPYING opencity-data.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- opencity (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(opencity) libGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLU.so.1()(64bit) libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_image-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_mixer-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_net-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libtinyxml.so.0()(64bit) libtinyxpath.so.0.1()(64bit) opencity-data rtld(GNU_HASH) opencity-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- opencity: appdata() appdata(opencity.appdata.xml) application() application(opencity.desktop) config(opencity) opencity opencity(x86-64) opencity-data: opencity-data Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/opencity/opencity-0.0.6.5stable.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7d7015bee0803f4b8257eefc5e1d7f437d581c6dcc0cd48628acf9896f0bc491 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7d7015bee0803f4b8257eefc5e1d7f437d581c6dcc0cd48628acf9896f0bc491 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n opencity -L /home/valtri/fedora2-scm/REVIEWS/opencity/repo-f23 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 Built with local dependencies: /home/valtri/fedora2-scm/REVIEWS/opencity/repo-f23/tinyxpath-1.3.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/valtri/fedora2-scm/REVIEWS/opencity/repo-f23/tinyxpath-devel-1.3.1-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm ============ There is a problem with "License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed." (sorry, this is after my suggestions :-)). It can be solved: - by adding "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" to -data subpackage (so opencity and opencity-data will require each other) - or the license files can be moved to -data subpackage ('%file data' section) Btw. there is a typo in %changelog: "Remove bouble installation" Both can be fixed post-review. Package APPROVED! -- 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