https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302504 --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- 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 is 1280000 bytes in 24 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation - Upstream reports a GPLv3 license (https://midas.psi.ch/elog/#license) In the source archive, exists a GPLv2 COPYING file ?? Some .c and .h files are release under GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ If main license is GPLv2, the RPMs should be release with "GPLv2 and GPLv3+" If main license is GPLv3, the RPMs should be release with GPLv3+ - elog-client is a standalone package without an own license file - Binary files are "No full Relro" and "No PIE" Probably LDFLAGS are not properly set - "rm -rf %{buildroot}" present but not required - PREFIX=%{_usr} ?? - Systemd scriptlets are missing https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?rd=Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [?]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1302504-elog/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib/systemd [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [?]: 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 elog- client , elog-debuginfo [ ]: 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. [-]: %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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2191360 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: elog-3.1.1-4.fc25.x86_64.rpm elog-client-3.1.1-4.fc25.x86_64.rpm elog-debuginfo-3.1.1-4.fc25.x86_64.rpm elog-3.1.1-4.fc25.src.rpm elog.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weblogs -> we blogs, we-blogs, web logs elog.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weblog -> we blog, we-blog, web log elog.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/elog/themes/default/compact.css elog.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/elog/COPYING elog.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/elog/logbooks elog elog.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/elog/logbooks elog elog.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/elog elog elog.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/elog elog elog.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/elog/themes/default/elog.css elog.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/elog/doc/strftime.txt elog.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/elog/themes/default/tiny.css elog.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/elog/scripts/ckeditor /usr/share/ckeditor elog-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/regex.h elog-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/regex.h elog-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/elog.c elog-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/regex.c elog-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/regex.c elog-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/elogd.c elog.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weblogs -> we blogs, we-blogs, web logs elog.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weblog -> we blog, we-blog, web log 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 14 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: elog-debuginfo-3.1.1-4.fc25.x86_64.rpm elog-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/regex.c elog-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/regex.c elog-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/regex.h elog-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/regex.h elog-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/elogd.c elog-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/elog.c 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory elog.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weblogs -> we blogs, we-blogs, web logs elog.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weblog -> we blog, we-blog, web log elog.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/elog elog elog.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/elog elog elog.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/elog/scripts/ckeditor /usr/share/ckeditor elog.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/elog/doc/strftime.txt elog.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/elog/themes/default/elog.css elog.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/elog/themes/default/compact.css elog.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/elog/themes/default/tiny.css elog.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/elog/COPYING elog.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/elog/logbooks elog elog.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/elog/logbooks elog elog-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/elog.c elog-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/regex.h elog-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/regex.h elog-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/regex.c elog-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/regex.c elog-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/elog-3.1.1/src/elogd.c 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 12 warnings. Requires -------- elog (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ckeditor config(elog) elog-client libc.so.6()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) shadow-utils elog-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) elog-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- elog: config(elog) elog elog(x86-64) elog-client: elog-client elog-client(x86-64) elog-debuginfo: elog-debuginfo elog-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://midas.psi.ch/elog/download/tar/elog-3.1.1-1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2b1bc1c9f34547aad7ed22c726dcfee9c633bc1056e08e10074059d147ed5be1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2b1bc1c9f34547aad7ed22c726dcfee9c633bc1056e08e10074059d147ed5be1 https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/elog/elogd.service : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 28474049a286571ac79704c7efb2eb1dd8aaea303b46949c075de2e36161c316 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 28474049a286571ac79704c7efb2eb1dd8aaea303b46949c075de2e36161c316 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1302504 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, 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