https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273 --- Comment #26 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. > This is fine, no need to change this. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa", "GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v3.0)", "Unknown or generated". 1555 files have unknown license. > License is GPLv3 not GPLv3+. See LICENSE file [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. > You should really add a breakdown if possible [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/bear-factory > This can be fixed by adding the following to the main package: BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme Requires: hicolor-icon-theme > Which is something I missed when I was reviewing bear. Please fix this. [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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 asgp [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. > ExcludeArch is required, but this is fine until bear is fixed on ppc64le... This arch is largely broken for a lot of stuff, so it's not a big deal. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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 asgp- data , asgp-debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > If this patch is upstreamable, I would send it, elsewise it doesn't matter too much. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: asgp-1.0.18-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm asgp-data-1.0.18-3.fc26.noarch.rpm asgp-debuginfo-1.0.18-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm asgp-1.0.18-3.fc26.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: asgp-debuginfo-1.0.18-3.fc26.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 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- asgp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh asgp-data bear-engine bear-factory libbear_engine.so()(64bit) libbear_generic_items.so()(64bit) libbear_gui.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libclaw_application.so.1()(64bit) libclaw_configuration_file.so.1()(64bit) libclaw_logger.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) asgp-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): asgp-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- asgp: application() application(asgp.desktop) asgp asgp(x86-64) librp.so()(64bit) asgp-data: asgp-data asgp-debuginfo: asgp-debuginfo asgp-debuginfo(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- asgp: /usr/lib64/bear/librp.so > This is fine because it's in a subfolder Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/j-jorge/asgp/archive/90d6d90e3196d387dc58f028a04e75af2281e513/asgp-90d6d90e3196d387dc58f028a04e75af2281e513.tar.gz#/asgp-90d6d90.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1cd9c4c7d52226e1e7498d3d0b2d681a416d8d61db8f88ff0fc18a4b713cf5b9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1cd9c4c7d52226e1e7498d3d0b2d681a416d8d61db8f88ff0fc18a4b713cf5b9 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1176273 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx