https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186560 --- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Please, use these scriptlets %post /usr/bin/update-desktop-database &> /dev/null || : %postun /usr/bin/update-desktop-database &> /dev/null || : See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database - Use -p option when install files manually: cp -p %SOURCE2 pixmaps/ *** mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/appdata cp -p %SOURCE1 %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/appdata/ or install -p -m 644 %SOURCE1 %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/appdata/ - [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools I hope this program is still maintained; please, ask to the upstream if it's possible upgrading the Autotools configuration files or fixing obsoleted macros. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in tilp2 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- database ===== 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". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1186560-tilp2/licensecheck.txt [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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 102400 bytes in 6 files. [!]: 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]: 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]: 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: [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [!]: update-mime-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package stores mime configuration in /usr/share/mime/packages. Note: mimeinfo files in: tilp2 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [!]: 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: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: tilp2-1.17-2.fc24.i686.rpm tilp2-1.17-2.fc24.src.rpm tilp2.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) handheld -> handhold, hand held, hand-held tilp2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US handhelds -> handholds, handhold tilp2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versa -> avers, verse, verso tilp2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) handheld -> handhold, hand held, hand-held tilp2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US handhelds -> handholds, handhold tilp2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versa -> avers, verse, verso 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: tilp2-debuginfo-1.17-2.fc24.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- tilp2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libatk-1.0.so.0 libc.so.6 libcairo.so.2 libfontconfig.so.1 libfreetype.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 libgio-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 libm.so.6 libpango-1.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libticables2.so.6 libticalcs2.so.11 libticonv.so.7 libtifiles2.so.9 libz.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- tilp2: appdata() appdata(tilp.appdata.xml) application() application(tilp.desktop) mimehandler(application/x-tilp) tilp2 tilp2(x86-32) Source checksums ---------------- https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/tilp.png : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0265eaafac9491e62ee85c2223c718dcf7372db0ff390ddb387fc94c4c331e10 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0265eaafac9491e62ee85c2223c718dcf7372db0ff390ddb387fc94c4c331e10 http://sourceforge.net/projects/tilp/files/tilp2-linux/tilp2-1.17/tilp2-1.17.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0bc744463450843c0f1e9deebf45af84a282304aff37865077ca7146d54ff6e7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0bc744463450843c0f1e9deebf45af84a282304aff37865077ca7146d54ff6e7 https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/tilp2/tilp.appdata.xml : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 95dede60a6ac2501859695520618878a628de8da2dcbfbbae8bc105044b15b20 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 95dede60a6ac2501859695520618878a628de8da2dcbfbbae8bc105044b15b20 AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: tilp2-1.17/configure.ac:37 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1186560 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 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 -- 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
