https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814 Randy Barlow <rbarlow@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rbarlow@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(dustymabe@redhat. | |com) --- Comment #4 from Randy Barlow <rbarlow@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hey Dusty! There are a few more issues to work out. See the lines that have a [!] below. I've added a bowlofeggs: to lines where I have comments. Also, when making new versions of the spec file and SRPM, many reviewers expect you to overwrite the same spec file URL, but to bump the SRPM release field. I personally don't mind if you re-use the srpm release and overwrite it as well, but the v2- prefix that you added made the review tool upset. When we get the final version of this spec done, you are going to import the final SRPM into the Fedora SCM, so you probably want to name it without the v2- prefix. All that said, when you fix the notes I listed below and make a new version, feel free to just make the URLs be the same as you had in the initial comment, or increment the release field if you want. I am about to go on vacation for three weeks starting on Tuesday. If you can have these things fixed by tomorrow I can review it tomorrow. Otherwise, feel free to find someone else to take over the review for me while I am away. One more thing, you can run fedora-review on your SRPM yourself if you want to see how I'm making the report below. Just run fedora-review -rn /path/to/srpm. It's handy because it'll build and install the package with mock, run rpmlint for you, and run a few other checks automatically. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: v2-vagrant-sshfs.spec should be vagrant-sshfs.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name ===== 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. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. bowlofeggs: Add the %license statement to the %files doc section near the bottom, and that'll take care of this. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/vagrant/gems/doc, /usr/share/vagrant/gems, /usr/share/vagrant bowlofeggs: I think this is just fedora-review messing up. [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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files bowlofeggs: You should try to remove these fonts upstream, but you can worry about that later. In the meantime, you should declare in your spec file that you are bundling these fonts. You can add the following lines near your Requires statements: Provides: bundled(lato-fonts) # Using OFL license https://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Source+Code+Pro Provides: bundled(sourcecodepro-fonts) [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in vagrant- sshfs-doc bowlofeggs: In the %package doc section, try the line above, adding %{?_isa}. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. bowlofeggs: No tests are being run in the check section. I suggest either running tests there, or removing the section. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/rbarlow/reviews/1343814-v2-vagrant- sshfs/srpm-unpacked/vagrant-sshfs.spec See: (this test has no URL) bowlofeggs: This happened because of the v2 prefix you put in front of the filenames. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). bowlofeggs: Looks like you just need to remove the period at the end of your summary. Rpmlint ------- Checking: vagrant-sshfs-1.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm vagrant-sshfs-doc-1.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm vagrant-sshfs-1.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm vagrant-sshfs.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A Vagrant synced folder plugin that mounts folders via SSHFS. vagrant-sshfs.noarch: W: no-documentation vagrant-sshfs.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A Vagrant synced folder plugin that mounts folders via SSHFS. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- vagrant-sshfs.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A Vagrant synced folder plugin that mounts folders via SSHFS. vagrant-sshfs.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- vagrant-sshfs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh vagrant vagrant-sshfs-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vagrant-sshfs Provides -------- vagrant-sshfs: vagrant(vagrant-sshfs) vagrant-sshfs vagrant-sshfs-doc: vagrant-sshfs-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://rubygems.org/gems/vagrant-sshfs-1.1.0.gem : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 548d7d4259f297bc975b042bb180af4da0cfb26e92f3258cb8b1c126ff49d90b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 548d7d4259f297bc975b042bb180af4da0cfb26e92f3258cb8b1c126ff49d90b Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1343814 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