https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245932 --- Comment #2 from William Moreno <williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Need Work: ?: Sources contain only permissible code or content. The shairplay-key file is redistributalbe? Fail: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Please a License Breakdown file as Source and include it with %license, can the attached file. ?: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. This app runs with a graphical interfase??? If yes you must include a name.deskptop and a name.appdata.xml file ?: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. This app runs as a system service? If yes you must include a systemd unit file so user can start the service with systemctl start shairplay Please fix these issues so I can check: ?: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: Pass: Package does not contain kernel modules. Pass: Package contains no static executables. Pass: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. NA: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. Pass: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) NA: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Pass: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: Pass: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Pass: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Pass: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Pass: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Pass: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Pass: Changelog in prescribed format. Pass: Development files must be in a -devel package Pass: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. Pass: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Pass: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Pass: Package does not generate any conflict. Pass: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. NA: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. Pass: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Pass: Spec file is legible and written in American English. Pass: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Pass: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Pass: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Pass: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Pass: Package installs properly. Pass: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Pass: 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. Pass: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Pass: Package must own all directories that it creates. Pass: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Pass: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Pass: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Pass: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Pass: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Pass: Dist tag is present. Pass: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Pass: Permissions on files are set properly. Pass: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. Pass: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. Pass: Package does not use a name that already exists. Pass: Package is not relocatable. Pass: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Pass: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Pass: File names are valid UTF-8. Pass: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: NA: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Pass: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Na: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Pass: Latest version is packaged. Pass: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Pass: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. NA: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Pass: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10657084 NA: %check is present and all tests pass. Pass: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Pass: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Pass: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Pass: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Pass: Buildroot is not present Pass: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Pass: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. Pass: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Pass: SourceX is a working URL. Pass: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: Pass: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. Pass: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Pass: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Pass: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: shairplay-0.9.0-1.20150508git0f41ade.fc21.x86_64.rpm shairplay-devel-0.9.0-1.20150508git0f41ade.fc21.x86_64.rpm shairplay-0.9.0-1.20150508git0f41ade.fc21.src.rpm shairplay.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) raop -> rap, rasp, ramp shairplay-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib shairplay-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation shairplay.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) raop -> rap, rasp, ramp 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: shairplay-debuginfo-0.9.0-1.20150508git0f41ade.fc21.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- shairplay.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) raop -> rap, rasp, ramp shairplay.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libshairplay.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 shairplay-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib shairplay-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- shairplay (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) shairplay-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libshairplay.so.0()(64bit) shairplay(x86-64) Provides -------- shairplay: libshairplay.so.0()(64bit) shairplay shairplay(x86-64) shairplay-devel: shairplay-devel shairplay-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/juhovh/shairplay/archive/0f41ade/shairplay-0f41ade.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4d104fbf3d95999bd15c72537559a1fdcfd02ee2463fb79bade91ab255188b18 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4d104fbf3d95999bd15c72537559a1fdcfd02ee2463fb79bade91ab255188b18 AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: shairplay- 0f41ade2678f374aa8446d127d6aa9d5a3d428da/configure.ac:14 -- 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