https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320583 James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== * EPEL5 stuff to be stripped after initial import. ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 296 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora-scm/1320583-php- swiftmailer/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 163840 bytes in 17 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. PHP: [x]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files. Note: phpCompatInfo version 5.0.0 DB built Mar 07 2016 07:28:32 CET static analyze results in /home/james/workspace/fedora-scm/1320583 -php-swiftmailer/phpci.log Rpmlint ------- Checking: php-swiftmailer-5.4.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm php-swiftmailer-5.4.1-1.fc25.src.rpm php-swiftmailer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Autoloader -> Auto loader, Auto-loader, Freeloader php-swiftmailer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Autoloader -> Auto loader, Auto-loader, Freeloader php-swiftmailer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usr -> use, us, user 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory php-swiftmailer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Autoloader -> Auto loader, Auto-loader, Freeloader 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- php-swiftmailer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): php(language) php-bcmath php-ctype php-date php-hash php-iconv php-mbstring php-mcrypt php-mhash php-openssl php-pcre php-reflection php-simplexml php-spl Provides -------- php-swiftmailer: php-composer(swiftmailer/swiftmailer) php-swiftmailer Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/swiftmailer/swiftmailer/archive/0697e6aa65c83edf97bb0f23d8763f94e3f11421/swiftmailer-5.4.1-0697e6a.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 71c37553af0a28da7f567d903f36e10a4d1bdf32bd7f39ba74872d13a8e59930 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 71c37553af0a28da7f567d903f36e10a4d1bdf32bd7f39ba74872d13a8e59930 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1320583 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 ==== Result ==== APPROVED (with the EPEL5 boilerplate removed after import) -- 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