https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359401 Christian Dersch <lupinix@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Christian Dersch <lupinix@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Looks ok, Approved! Just have a look at the update-desktop-database scriptlets. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===> The packages look fine, just a false-positive as two deps (aseman-qt-tools and telegramqml are not yet synced to mirrors) - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in cutegram See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop- database ===> Please check this ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/review/1359401-cutegram/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in cutegram [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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: 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: [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. ===> You only ship GPL, what about the other licenses? [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 cutegram-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. ===> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15012397 [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: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint ===> The packages look fine, just a false-positive as two deps (aseman-qt-tools and telegramqml are not yet synced to mirrors) [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. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.18 starting (python version = 3.5.1)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata Mock Version: 1.2.18 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.18 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/review/1359401-cutegram/results/cutegram-debuginfo-3.0-0.4git7294861.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/review/1359401-cutegram/results/cutegram-3.0-0.4git7294861.fc25.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/review/1359401-cutegram/results/cutegram-debuginfo-3.0-0.4git7294861.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/review/1359401-cutegram/results/cutegram-3.0-0.4git7294861.fc25.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: cutegram-3.0-0.4git7294861.fc25.x86_64.rpm cutegram-debuginfo-3.0-0.4git7294861.fc25.x86_64.rpm cutegram-3.0-0.4git7294861.fc25.src.rpm cutegram.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Cutegram cutegram.x86_64: W: invalid-license CC-BY-4.0 cutegram.x86_64: W: no-documentation cutegram.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cutegram cutegram-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license CC-BY-4.0 cutegram.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Cutegram cutegram.src: W: invalid-license CC-BY-4.0 cutegram.src:29: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-linkify) cutegram.src:30: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-twemoji) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. ===> Please check whether the license field has to contain "CC-BY" or "CC-BY-4.0" Requires -------- cutegram (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh aseman-qt-tools(x86-64) hicolor-icon-theme libGL.so.1()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.7)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Qml.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Qml.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Quick.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) qt5-qtgraphicaleffects(x86-64) qt5-qtquickcontrols(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) telegramqml(x86-64) cutegram-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- cutegram: application() application(Cutegram.desktop) bundled(js-linkify) bundled(js-twemoji) cutegram cutegram(x86-64) mimehandler(application/x-xdg-protocol-tg) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/tg) cutegram-debuginfo: cutegram-debuginfo cutegram-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Aseman-Land/Cutegram/archive/7294861b65861adb401668291d85970c5900fc5b/cutegram-7294861.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 365b8422b437d73c4d1572615a2e733140884ae33a69c9a31c46bee784a8847a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 365b8422b437d73c4d1572615a2e733140884ae33a69c9a31c46bee784a8847a Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1359401 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