https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340513 Till Hofmann <hofmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Till Hofmann <hofmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size in /usr/share is 20480 bytes in 4 files, but there is documentation in /usr/lib/gap/pkg/gbnp/doc with 137 files and size 3.4MB. I know from the last review that gap handles documentation differently, but is it still possible to move those files to a doc package? You could also put all doc files in /usr/share and then symlink /usr/lib/gap/pkg/gbnp/doc. - There are a lot of files in /usr/lib/gap/pkg/gbnp/doc that look like they shouldn't be packaged. Some of them are removed in %install, but all files in subfolders are still there. I suggest you replace rm -f in %install with some suitable find ... -delete - [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. If for some reason you can't use %{?_smp_mflags}, please specify the reason in the Spec file. - There are 81 test files packaged. Do they need to be in the package? If so, please specify the reason. - Not sure if the TODO file should be packaged. - Please convert the following files to utf8: gap-pkg-gbnp.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gap-pkg-gbnp/TODO gap-pkg-gbnp.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/gap/pkg/gbnp/doc/gbnp_doc.tex - spelling: gap-pkg-gbnp.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) noncommutative -> non commutative, non-commutative, noncom mutative This should probably be non-commutative. All other spelling errors are okay. not necessarily an issue: - [?]: Development files must be in a -devel package I don't know enough about gap to be able to say which files are development files. Please move all development files to a -devel package if there are any. not an issue: - 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 copyrightcomment is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text --> that file is not actually a license file ===== 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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [-]: 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 20480 bytes in 4 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 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: [!]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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: [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gap-pkg-gbnp-1.0.3-1.fc25.noarch.rpm gap-pkg-gbnp-1.0.3-1.fc25.src.rpm gap-pkg-gbnp.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) noncommutative -> non commutative, non-commutative, noncom mutative gap-pkg-gbnp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US solvability -> sociability, livability, solubility gap-pkg-gbnp.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gap-pkg-gbnp.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gap-pkg-gbnp/TODO gap-pkg-gbnp.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/gap/pkg/gbnp/doc/gbnp_doc.tex gap-pkg-gbnp.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) noncommutative -> non commutative, non-commutative, noncom mutative gap-pkg-gbnp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US solvability -> sociability, livability, solubility 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory gap-pkg-gbnp.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) noncommutative -> non commutative, non-commutative, noncom mutative gap-pkg-gbnp.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US solvability -> sociability, livability, solubility gap-pkg-gbnp.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gap-pkg-gbnp.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/lib/gap/pkg/gbnp/doc/gbnp_doc.tex gap-pkg-gbnp.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gap-pkg-gbnp/TODO 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- gap-pkg-gbnp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh gap-core Provides -------- gap-pkg-gbnp: gap-pkg-gbnp Source checksums ---------------- http://mathdox.org/products/gbnp/GBNP-1.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : efde746049eedd63159c5f7fed810f82b3929105402ef60fe5530f7496c93e06 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : efde746049eedd63159c5f7fed810f82b3929105402ef60fe5530f7496c93e06 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1340513 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 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx