https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379460 --- Comment #5 from Jan Chaloupka <jchaloup@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > $ rpmlint kompose-0.1.0-0.1.git8227684.fc24.src.rpm kompose-0.1.0-0.1.git8227684.fc24.x86_64.rpm kompose-debuginfo-0.1.0-0.1.git8227684.fc24.x86_64.rpm > kompose.src:596: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} > kompose.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/kompose/CONTRIBUTING.md > kompose.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/kompose/LICENSE > kompose.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/kompose/RELEASE.md > kompose.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/kompose/README.md > kompose.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/kompose/code-of-conduct.md > kompose.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kompose > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Permissions of the affected files need to be altered. Man page is optional. The macro should be removed are changed to %%{buildroot} > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. True > [ ]: Package contains no static executables. Go binary is static binary, known fact > Generic: > [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. ASL 2.0 > [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", > "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)", "ISC", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 > clause)", "BSD (3 clause) MIT/X11 (BSD like)". 1590 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/tmpOV_NQ5/review- > kompose/licensecheck.txt non ASL 2.0 licenses are licences of dependencies in the vendor directory, not the project itself > [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. True > [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. True, Go specific > [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. It contains bundled libraries, all of them are listed as "Provides: bundles(library) = %{version}-COMMIT" > [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. True > [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. True > [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. No GUI application > [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package No devel subpackage, only sources > [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. True > [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). That is true > [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. It is > [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. It does not > [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. It does > [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. No applicable > [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. True > [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. The spec file is readable > [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. No systemd > [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Present > [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Not applicable > [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 5 files. Not applicable > [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines It does > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Not applicable > [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). True > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in kompose- > debuginfo True, debuginfo is generated automatically by rpmbuild > [ ]: Package functions as described. Not applicable > [ ]: Latest version is packaged. True > [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. True > [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Not applicable > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. True > [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. Not applicable, devel is not generated > [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > Note: %define requiring justification: %define gobuild(o:) go build > -ldflags "${LDFLAGS:-} -B 0x$(head -c20 /dev/urandom|od -An -tx1|tr -d > ' \\n')" -a -v -x %{?**}; I prefer using %define for functions and %global for constants (constant variables). Meaning, the spec file was automatically generated by provided tool. -- 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