https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247328 --- Comment #8 from William Moreno <williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Hi Sorry for the late feedback, this is a simple package, the spec looks good, but there is some things than can improve the user experience: 1- Can you add a manpage? You can install the maneditor package in Fedora and write a manpage, even a minimal manpage can improve the user experience, if you write a manpage please ask upstream to merge it. 2- This package provides 2 binaries, sshrc and moshrc, I am not sure about whow users will find the second binari based in the name and description of the package, maybe if you write manpage for sshrc you can refer than moshrc it is avaible too, note than you will need a man page for each binari. The missing manpage is not a bloquer, but I want to ask if you can work in it. ===== MUST items ===== 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: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. PASS: Changelog in prescribed format. PASS: Sources contain only permissible code or content. NA: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. NA: 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. PASS: 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: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. PASS: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. PASS: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. PASS: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines 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. NA: 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). PASS: Latest version is packaged. PASS: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. PASS: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. PASS: 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. 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: SourceX is a working URL. PASS: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: PASS: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). PASS: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: sshrc-0.5-3.fc21.noarch.rpm sshrc-0.5-3.fc21.src.rpm sshrc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bashrc -> bash sshrc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vimrc -> victim sshrc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sshrc sshrc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary moshrc sshrc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bashrc -> bash sshrc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vimrc -> victim sshrc.src: W: strange-permission 0.5.tar.gz 640 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sshrc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bashrc -> bash sshrc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vimrc -> victim sshrc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US login -> loin, logic, lo gin sshrc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Russell91/sshrc <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> sshrc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sshrc sshrc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary moshrc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- sshrc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env openssh-clients vim-common Provides -------- sshrc: sshrc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Russell91/sshrc/archive/0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4592df6fc2987adbbce84dbe305d9b769f7177a545122295629ce2fb61ecbba3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4592df6fc2987adbbce84dbe305d9b769f7177a545122295629ce2fb61ecbba3 -- 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