https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166916 --- Comment #18 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [-]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1166916-fuzzynet/licensecheck.txt Most of the source code files provides this header, but do not explain what license is applied /* * * fuzzynet: Fuzzy Logic Library for Microsoft .NET * Copyright (C) 2008 Dmitry Kaluzhny (kaluzhny_dmitrie@xxxxxxx) * * */ These files are without license headers fuzzynet-1.2.0/CruiseControlSample/MainForm.Designer.cs fuzzynet-1.2.0/CruiseControlSample/MainForm.cs fuzzynet-1.2.0/CruiseControlSample/Program.cs fuzzynet-1.2.0/CruiseControlSample/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs fuzzynet-1.2.0/CruiseControlSample/Properties/Resources.Designer.cs fuzzynet-1.2.0/CruiseControlSample/Properties/Settings.Designer.cs fuzzynet-1.2.0/FuzzyLogicLibrary/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs fuzzynet-1.2.0/TipsSample/MainForm.Designer.cs fuzzynet-1.2.0/TipsSample/MainForm.cs fuzzynet-1.2.0/TipsSample/Program.cs fuzzynet-1.2.0/TipsSample/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs fuzzynet-1.2.0/TipsSample/Properties/Resources.Designer.cs fuzzynet-1.2.0/TipsSample/Properties/Settings.Designer.cs [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Impossible for me to determine whether the source code under the GPLv2 license as stated in http://sf.net/projects/fuzzynet [-]: 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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). gacutil -i %{libname}/bin/Debug/%{libname}.dll -f -package %{name} -root %{buildroot}/usr/lib Please use %{_libdir} [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. [-]: 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 716800 bytes in 215 files. [?]: 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]: 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. Please [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: fuzzynet-1.2.0-0.5.beta.fc25.i686.rpm fuzzynet-devel-1.2.0-0.5.beta.fc25.i686.rpm fuzzynet-1.2.0-0.5.beta.fc25.src.rpm fuzzynet.i686: E: no-binary fuzzynet.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib fuzzynet-devel.i686: W: no-documentation fuzzynet.src:65: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib fuzzynet.src: W: invalid-url Source1: http://sf.net/projects/fuzzynet/files/fuzzynet/fuzzynet%20v1.2.0%20%28beta%29/fuzzynet_1.2.0.chm#/fuzzynet-1.2.0.chm HTTP Error 404: Not Found fuzzynet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://sf.net/projects/fuzzynet/files/fuzzynet/fuzzynet%20v1.2.0%20%28beta%29/fuzzynet_1.2.0.zip#/fuzzynet-1.2.0.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- fuzzynet-devel.i686: W: no-documentation fuzzynet.i686: E: no-binary fuzzynet.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- fuzzynet-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config fuzzynet(x86-32) pkgconfig(mono) fuzzynet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mono(mscorlib) Provides -------- fuzzynet-devel: fuzzynet-devel fuzzynet-devel(x86-32) pkgconfig(fuzzynet) fuzzynet: fuzzynet fuzzynet(x86-32) mono(FuzzyLogicLibrary) Source checksums ---------------- http://sf.net/projects/fuzzynet/files/fuzzynet/fuzzynet v1.2.0 (beta)/fuzzynet_1_2_0.zip#/fuzzynet-1.2.0.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a9cf6019dc8f9d1db63b20d9b1eafaf11ab501008f747b46edf0fa93294681bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a9cf6019dc8f9d1db63b20d9b1eafaf11ab501008f747b46edf0fa93294681bf http://sf.net/projects/fuzzynet/files/fuzzynet/fuzzynet v1.2.0 (beta)/fuzzynet_1_2_0.chm#/fuzzynet-1.2.0.chm : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : be04098140f0ad5c36167cfd7107f80b06319c83a42f4a70b76d2060ec775e44 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : be04098140f0ad5c36167cfd7107f80b06319c83a42f4a70b76d2060ec775e44 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1166916 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 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