https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223455 --- Comment #10 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz <claudiorodrigo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #7) > There's already a package in PkgDB, 2 monthes old. Why a new review request? > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/mysql-connector-net.git/commit/?h=f23 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/mysql-connector-net/ > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Package does not use a name that already exists. > Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/mysql-connector-net > See: This is a Re-Review for unretired this package. That is way use the same name. See https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6222. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ > NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names > - License is "GPLv2+ and BSD", not "GPLv2 or BSD". I fail to find any > prevention of GPLv3+. > - There's a new version 6.9.7 available at upstream, please update. > I will check this. > ===== MUST items ===== > > 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. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL > (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 272 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-review/1223455 > -mysql-connector-net/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. > [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. > [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [-]: 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. > [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > => Mono can not provide external debuginfo. > [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 10240 bytes in 2 files. > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Why? Please help me to fix this point. > [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]: 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 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). > [?]: Package functions as described. > [!]: Latest version is packaged. I will check this to. And update the source to the last version. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. The patch is for build with mono 4 that only support target 4.5. I can try to fix this the same way that fix all packages for Mono 4 Change and remove the patch. > [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [-]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: mysql-connector-net-6.9.6-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm > mysql-connector-net-devel-6.9.6-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm > mysql-connector-net-6.9.6-4.fc24.src.rpm > mysql-connector-net.x86_64: E: no-binary > mysql-connector-net.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > mysql-connector-net-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > mysql-connector-net-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > mysql-connector-net.src:52: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. > ==> Ignore, this are general issues of mono. > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > sh: /usr/bin/python: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden > mysql-connector-net.x86_64: E: no-binary > mysql-connector-net.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > mysql-connector-net-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > mysql-connector-net-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. > ==> Ignore, general issues of mono. > > > Requires > -------- > mysql-connector-net (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > mono(System) > mono(System.Configuration) > mono(System.Configuration.Install) > mono(System.Data) > mono(System.Drawing) > mono(System.Management) > mono(System.Transactions) > mono(System.Xml) > mono(mscorlib) > mono-data > > mysql-connector-net-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/pkg-config > mysql-connector-net(x86-64) > pkgconfig > > > > Provides > -------- > mysql-connector-net: > mono(MySql.Data) > mysql-connector-net > mysql-connector-net(x86-64) > > mysql-connector-net-devel: > mysql-connector-net-devel > mysql-connector-net-devel(x86-64) > pkgconfig(mysql-connector-net) > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > http://cdn.mysql.com/Downloads/Connector-Net/mysql-connector-net-6.9.6-src. > zip : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 896a384f7cd89547138b3b8cf4422e0ba54c009104d06520120ab0cdf4cf013c > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 896a384f7cd89547138b3b8cf4422e0ba54c009104d06520120ab0cdf4cf013c > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1223455 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api > Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, 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