https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270394 Christian Dersch <lupinix@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #23 from Christian Dersch <lupinix@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Review done using F23 (due to broken rawhide deps), just missing: license breakdown according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios Solution: Approved, as I think you can add this before SCM import and rest looks fine :) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file COPYING.txt is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===> As in first review approach: false positive - Add license breakdown to spec ===== 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. [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) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 174 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/review/1270394-sharpziplib/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. ====> Please add this using licensecheck output [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [-]: %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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sharpziplib-doc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: sharpziplib : /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/sharpziplib.pc [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: %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]: 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: sharpziplib-0.86.0-0.3.fc23.x86_64.rpm sharpziplib-doc-0.86.0-0.3.fc23.noarch.rpm sharpziplib-0.86.0-0.3.fc23.src.rpm sharpziplib.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US installable -> install able, install-able, uninstallable sharpziplib.x86_64: W: invalid-license zlib/libpng sharpziplib.x86_64: E: no-binary sharpziplib.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sharpziplib.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sharpziplib/COPYING.txt sharpziplib.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/sharpziplib.pc sharpziplib-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license zlib/libpng sharpziplib-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/sharpziplib-doc/COPYING.txt sharpziplib-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sharpziplib-doc/COPYING.txt sharpziplib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US installable -> install able, install-able, uninstallable sharpziplib.src: W: invalid-license zlib/libpng sharpziplib.src:90: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 7 warnings. ====> As you informed upstream about wrong FSF address, everything should be fine Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory sharpziplib-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license zlib/libpng sharpziplib-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/sharpziplib-doc/COPYING.txt sharpziplib-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sharpziplib-doc/COPYING.txt sharpziplib.x86_64: W: invalid-license zlib/libpng sharpziplib.x86_64: E: no-binary sharpziplib.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sharpziplib.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/sharpziplib.pc sharpziplib.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sharpziplib/COPYING.txt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings. ====> As you informed upstream about wrong FSF address, everything should be fine Requires -------- sharpziplib-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): sharpziplib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config mono(System) mono(mscorlib) mono-core Provides -------- sharpziplib-doc: sharpziplib-doc sharpziplib: mono(ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib) pkgconfig(sharpziplib) sharpziplib sharpziplib(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/icsharpcode/sharpziplib/archive/e01215507cf25a5978a0bd850c9e67dbabf515b7.tar.gz#/sharpziplib-e01215507cf25a5978a0bd850c9e67dbabf515b7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e8b8f0e6d4a76757f91a45a383cbcb1424355fb349e7a0f6d39ba266bceb7489 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e8b8f0e6d4a76757f91a45a383cbcb1424355fb349e7a0f6d39ba266bceb7489 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-23-x86_64 -b 1270394 Buildroot used: fedora-23-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