https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312963 --- Comment #8 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- 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 is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text I think this is due to: %doc glibc-%{version}/BUGS glibc-%{version}/C* glibc-%{version}/README I suggest using: %doc glibc-%{version}/BUGS glibc-%{version}/CONFORMANCE %doc glibc-%{version}/ChangeLog* glibc-%{version}/README %license glibc-%{version}/COPYING* - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 9533440 bytes in 38 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation That's 9M out of ~60M of installed size. I'm not sure including all the ChangeLogs is worth the space. I'd gzip them at least. - Licensecheck found more licenses inside. Please adjust the License: tag or explain why it's not required. - /usr/arm-linux-gnu seems to be unowned - Why are you using make -j1 in %install? - Requires: kernel-cross-headers are only for F24+, are they not required on F23? - It's not documented how arm-kernel-headers-4.3.5-300.tar.xz is created ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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) ISC LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD", "BSD (3 clause) ISC", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL", "ISC", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3)", "GPL (v2)", "BSD (3 clause) LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 4729 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/arm-linux-gnu [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/arm-linux-gnu [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. [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. [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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: Requires -------- glibc-arm-linux-gnu-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc-arm-linux-gnu kernel-cross-headers glibc-arm-linux-gnu (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- glibc-arm-linux-gnu-devel: glibc-arm-linux-gnu-devel glibc-arm-linux-gnu: glibc-arm-linux-gnu Source checksums ---------------- ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/glibc/glibc-2.23.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 94efeb00e4603c8546209cefb3e1a50a5315c86fa9b078b6fad758e187ce13e9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 94efeb00e4603c8546209cefb3e1a50a5315c86fa9b078b6fad758e187ce13e9 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n /home/rathann/build/RPMS/glibc-arm-linux-gnu-2.23-3.fc23.src.rpm -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx