https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273 --- Comment #27 from MartinKG <mgansser@xxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #26) > 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. ok > > [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 done > > [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 done > > [!]: 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. - add RR hicolor-icon-theme in both packages, I think BR is not required. > [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. ok > > ===== 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. done new rpms: Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/asgp.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/asgp-1.0.18-4.fc25.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jan 02 2017 Martin Gansser <martinkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.18-4 - correct license to GPLv3 - add license breakdown - add BR desktop-file-utils - add RR hicolor-icon-theme -- 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