https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374947 --- Comment #2 from Michal Ruprich <mruprich@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc make See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ##Consider removing gcc and make from requires since they are not needed, both are required by default ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ##Because this beeing a svn snapshot version, it would be good to name it according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#NonNumericRelease [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. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://sourceforge.net/code- snapshots/svn/v/vp/vpcs/code/vpcs-code-126-trunk.zip See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags ##Double check the link, I wasn't able to connect to it [-]: 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 vpcs- debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments ##Again the same as the problem with URL [-]: 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. ##Add %check 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 [!]: SourceX is a working URL. ##Mentioned above [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: vpcs-0.8.0svn126-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm vpcs-debuginfo-0.8.0svn126-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm vpcs-0.8.0svn126-1.fc24.src.rpm vpcs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US traceroute -> trace route, trace-route, outrace vpcs.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/vpcs.1.gz 3: warning: macro `/' not defined vpcs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US traceroute -> trace route, trace-route, outrace vpcs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://sourceforge.net/code-snapshots/svn/v/vp/vpcs/code/vpcs-code-126-trunk.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. ##Disregard the notes from Rpmlint about spelling error, the URL is mentioned above ##Check the man page note Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: vpcs-debuginfo-0.8.0svn126-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory vpcs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US traceroute -> trace route, trace-route, outrace vpcs.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/vpcs.1.gz 3: warning: macro `/' not defined 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ##same as above Requires -------- vpcs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) vpcs-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- vpcs: vpcs vpcs(x86-64) vpcs-debuginfo: vpcs-debuginfo vpcs-debuginfo(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1374947 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx