https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287756 --- Comment #10 from Michael Simacek <msimacek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- - you should use %license macro for license instead of %doc. Also, it would be better if you didn't install the license manually and let rpmbuild handle it (copying it into build dir in %prep and then having just `%license LICENSE` in %files). Just FYI, you should have replaced <organization> with "Red Hat" in the license. - is there any specific reason to have it installed in /usr/share? If it's supposed to be executed by the user, it should go to /usr/bin, otherwise to /usr/libexec. - you should try to preserve timestamps of the files by using -p argument of cp - is there some documentation for it? it would be nice if it had a manpage Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/copy_jdk_configs [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/copy_jdk_configs [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [?]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 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 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: copy-jdk-configs-1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm copy-jdk-configs-1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm copy-jdk-configs.src: W: strange-permission copy_jdk_configs.lua 755 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- copy-jdk-configs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/lua lua lua-posix Provides -------- copy-jdk-configs: copy-jdk-configs Source checksums ---------------- https://hg.fedorahosted.org/hg/copy_jdk_configs/raw-file/copy_jdk_configs-1.0/copy_jdk_configs.lua : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4ce4d594897b9f099c03302943042cc46460198b858064439ce7d33be97e0b24 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4ce4d594897b9f099c03302943042cc46460198b858064439ce7d33be97e0b24 https://hg.fedorahosted.org/hg/copy_jdk_configs/raw-file/copy_jdk_configs-1.0/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 44925e9dc7359ec6e978e6e7b4662785415825854f2c828f1a17694684340ecb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 44925e9dc7359ec6e978e6e7b4662785415825854f2c828f1a17694684340ecb Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1287756 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