https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410992 Pavlina Moravcova Varekova <pmoravco@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Pavlina Moravcova Varekova <pmoravco@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pavlina/work/review/rev_004/1410992-git-phab/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.6 [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 [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [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 [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: git-phab-2.0.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm git-phab-2.0.0-1.fc27.src.rpm git-phab.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) subcommand -> sub command, sub-command, commandant git-phab.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) phabricator -> fabricator git-phab.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subcommand -> sub command, sub-command, commandant git-phab.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US phabricator -> fabricator git-phab.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/git-phab/COPYING git-phab.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) subcommand -> sub command, sub-command, commandant git-phab.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) phabricator -> fabricator git-phab.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subcommand -> sub command, sub-command, commandant git-phab.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US phabricator -> fabricator git-phab.src: W: invalid-url Source0: git-phab-2.0.0.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory git-phab.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) subcommand -> sub command, sub-command, commandant git-phab.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) phabricator -> fabricator git-phab.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subcommand -> sub command, sub-command, commandant git-phab.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US phabricator -> fabricator git-phab.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/git-phab/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- git-phab (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-GitPython python3-appdirs python3-argcomplete python3-phabricator Provides -------- git-phab: git-phab python3.6dist(git-phab) python3dist(git-phab) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1410992 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -------------------------------------- - notify upstream about incorrect-fsf-address and ask them to update the license text - check with upstream what the intended license is: - it seems to be GPLv2+ according the comment in the code - but there is written license="GPL" in the setup.py so if it is really GPLv2+ upstream should update the license text in the setup.py - add comment to the spec regarding the patch, i.e. purpose of the patch, whether it was reported upstream, ticket number, etc. -- 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