https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366713 Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz <claudiorodrigo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz <claudiorodrigo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Look good for me. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: 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: "Unknown or generated". 1051 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /data/fedora/1366713-nunit2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit- console-runner(nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit.mocks/2.6.4.0__96d09a1eb7f44a77(nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit.framework(nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit.util(nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit.framework/2.6.4.0__96d09a1eb7f44a77(nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit.mocks(nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit.util/2.6.4.0__96d09a1eb7f44a77(nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit.core.interfaces/2.6.4.0__96d09a1eb7f44a77(nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit.core.interfaces(nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit.core/2.6.4.0__96d09a1eb7f44a77(nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit-console- runner/2.6.4.0__96d09a1eb7f44a77(nunit), /usr/lib/mono/gac/nunit.core(nunit) [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. [x]: 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]: 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 nunit2-gui [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in nunit2-gui [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 3092480 bytes in /usr/share [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: nunit2-2.6.4-13.fc24.x86_64.rpm nunit2-gui-2.6.4-13.fc24.x86_64.rpm nunit2-doc-2.6.4-13.fc24.x86_64.rpm nunit2-devel-2.6.4-13.fc24.x86_64.rpm nunit2-2.6.4-13.fc24.src.rpm nunit2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US NUnit -> N Unit, Unit, Nu nit nunit2.x86_64: E: no-binary nunit2.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nunit2.x86_64: W: no-documentation nunit2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nunit-console26 nunit2-gui.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nunit2-gui.x86_64: W: no-documentation nunit2-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nunit-gui26 nunit2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nunit2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation nunit2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US NUnit -> N Unit, Unit, Nu nit 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nunit2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US NUnit -> N Unit, Unit, Nu nit nunit2.x86_64: E: no-binary nunit2.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nunit2.x86_64: W: no-documentation nunit2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nunit-console26 nunit2-gui.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nunit2-gui.x86_64: W: no-documentation nunit2-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nunit-gui26 nunit2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nunit2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Requires -------- nunit2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh mono(System) mono(System.Configuration) mono(System.Drawing) mono(System.Runtime.Remoting) mono(System.Windows.Forms) mono(System.Xml) mono(mscorlib) mono(nunit-console-runner) mono(nunit.core) mono(nunit.core.interfaces) mono(nunit.framework) mono(nunit.uiexception) mono(nunit.uikit) mono(nunit.util) nunit2-gui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh mono(mscorlib) mono(nunit-gui-runner) nunit2(x86-64) nunit2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config nunit2(x86-64) pkgconfig nunit2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nunit2(x86-64) Provides -------- nunit2: mono(nunit-console) mono(nunit-console-runner) mono(nunit-gui-runner) mono(nunit.core) mono(nunit.core.interfaces) mono(nunit.framework) mono(nunit.mocks) mono(nunit.uiexception) mono(nunit.uikit) mono(nunit.util) nunit2 nunit2(x86-64) nunit2-gui: application() application(nunit2.desktop) mimehandler(application/octet-stream) mono(nunit) nunit2-gui nunit2-gui(x86-64) nunit2-devel: nunit2-devel nunit2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(nunit2) nunit2-doc: nunit2-doc nunit2-doc(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/nunit/nunitv2/archive/2.6.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d5d3ed8d4f811b33f07ede67025dbcf1c4949e076130489a292002bee73e68b1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d5d3ed8d4f811b33f07ede67025dbcf1c4949e076130489a292002bee73e68b1 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1366713 Buildroot used: fedora-24-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