https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230161 William Moreno <williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from William Moreno <williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Need Work: 1- You SHOULD add a appdata.xml file to show this app in Gnome Software https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData 2- Test build passed: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10874448 http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3147836 http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1939904 http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2724943 3- This BR are not needed: coreutils make sed 4- This app do not have a icon, so I will recomend add this line to the desktop file: Icon=web-browser 5- [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. In build I will recomend to use make %{?_smp_mflags} Please fix these issues to 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: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Pass Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. 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: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. 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. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. 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: 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: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. Pass: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. 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). Pass: Package functions as described. Pass: Latest version is packaged. Pass: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. Pass: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. 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: 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 debuginfo package(s). Pass: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. 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: jumanji-0-2.20111209git963b309.fc21.x86_64.rpm jumanji-0-2.20111209git963b309.fc21.src.rpm jumanji.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) customizable -> customization jumanji.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization jumanji.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vimperator -> impersonator, imperative jumanji.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) customizable -> customization jumanji.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization jumanji.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vimperator -> impersonator, imperative jumanji.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jumanji-963b309.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: jumanji-debuginfo-0-2.20111209git963b309.fc21.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- jumanji-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://pwmt.org/projects/jumanji <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> jumanji.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) customizable -> customization jumanji.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization jumanji.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vimperator -> impersonator, imperative jumanji.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://pwmt.org/projects/jumanji <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- jumanji (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh desktop-file-utils libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libjavascriptcoregtk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit) libunique-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libwebkitgtk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- jumanji: application() application(jumanji.desktop) jumanji jumanji(x86-64) -- 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