https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378445 Fl@sh <alex.mail.1534@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |alex.mail.1534@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Fl@sh <alex.mail.1534@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages// << scratch build is present [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: "LGPL", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 46 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/Flash/Downloads/review- kf5-kirigami/licensecheck.txt // << used common LGPLv2 license [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms.// << scratch build is present [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. [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: 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 901120 bytes in 66 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. // << scratch build is present [-]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: kf5-kirigami-1.0.2-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm kf5-kirigami-1.0.2-1.fc26.src.rpm kf5-kirigami.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.26.0-1 ['1.0.2-1.fc26', '1.0.2-1'] kf5-kirigami.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- kf5-kirigami.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.26.0-1 ['1.0.2-1.fc26', '1.0.2-1'] kf5-kirigami.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/Flash/Downloads/kf5-kirigami.spec 2016-09-22 20:37:25.091430651 +0300 +++ /home/Flash/Downloads/review-kf5-kirigami/srpm-unpacked/kf5-kirigami.spec 2016-09-22 15:28:37.000000000 +0300 @@ -9,5 +9,5 @@ Name: kf5-%{framework} -Version: 1.0.2 +Version: 1.0.2 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: QtQuick plugins to build user interfaces based on the KDE UX guidelines @@ -31,5 +31,4 @@ Requires: kf5-filesystem >= %{version} -Requires: qt5-qtquickcontrols%{?_isa} %description @@ -88,5 +87,5 @@ %changelog -* Thu Sep 22 2016 Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.2-1 +* Thu Sep 22 2016 Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 5.26.0-1 - first try Requires -------- kf5-kirigami (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig kf5-filesystem libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.7)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Qml.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Qml.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Quick.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Quick.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- kf5-kirigami: kf5-kirigami kf5-kirigami(x86-64) libkirigamiplugin.so()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- kf5-kirigami: /usr/lib64/qt5/qml/org/kde/kirigami/libkirigamiplugin.so Source checksums ---------------- http://download.kde.org/stable/kirigami/kirigami-1.0.2.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0ed0aad3034583a912675a915e922807e25e3798de4db6cd7cebba712fee27d8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0ed0aad3034583a912675a915e922807e25e3798de4db6cd7cebba712fee27d8 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --prebuilt -c -n kf5-kirigami 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 Problems with different spec in url and SRPM. After fixes can be approved. -- 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