https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290922 --- Comment #13 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #9) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #8) > > > > [!]: 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. > > > > --> See above. > The way I understand this point, if the license is missing, it is not > supposed > to be included from other sources. Any license file must be tagged with '%license' macro. In this package there is not any license file but i think you can add a GPLv3 text file as long as upstream includes an own one. > > > [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > > [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > > [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any > > that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > > > > --> gcc-c++ make can be removed as BR. > That's an error in fedora-review. gcc-g++ might be removed from the default > build root, and this dependency future-proofs against that. > > > [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. > > [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > > [-]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > > [-]: 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 freedv- > > debuginfo > > [ ]: Package functions as described. > > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > > [?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > > justified. > > > > --> Please, leave comments about patches. > > > > [-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > > [-]: 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. > > [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > > files. > > [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file > > [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. > > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > > [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > > > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > > > $ checksec --file ./moose > > RELRO STACK CANARY NX PIE RPATH RUNPATH FILE > > Full Canary found enabled enabled No No RUNPATH ./moose > > > > I suggest to control whith 'checksec' in F22 if it's necessary. > I don't understand: this checksec output looks OK, no? 'checksec' output of 'moose' bin file compiled in F24/F23 is good but hardened builds are not automatically activated on F22, so maybe you will have need to add compiler/linker flags manually. -- 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