https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448778 --- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed - License analysis from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448778#c1 is missing. - Diff spec file in url and in SRPM. Update SPEC file and rebuild the SRPM. - Consider splitting off language files in separated 'langpacks' packages. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_do_we_need_to_use_.25find_lang.3F http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Langpacks - No tests executed: **** + ctest -V -j3 UpdateCTestConfiguration from :/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILD/Cockatrice-2017-05-05-Release-2.3.17/DartConfiguration.tcl UpdateCTestConfiguration from :/home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILD/Cockatrice-2017-05-05-Release-2.3.17/DartConfiguration.tcl Test project /home/sagitter/rpmbuild/BUILD/Cockatrice-2017-05-05-Release-2.3.17 Constructing a list of tests Updating test list for fixtures Added 0 tests to meet fixture requirements Checking test dependency graph... Checking test dependency graph end No tests were found!!! **** ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2)". 971 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1448778-cockatrice/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: 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 cockatrice [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [!]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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: [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5478400 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: cockatrice-2.3.17-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm cockatrice-2.3.17-2.fc27.src.rpm cockatrice.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiplayer -> multiplier, multiplexer cockatrice.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplatform -> multiform, formulation, formulator cockatrice.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib cockatrice.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id cockatrice.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id cockatrice.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cockatrice cockatrice.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary servatrice cockatrice.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oracle cockatrice.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiplayer -> multiplier, multiplexer cockatrice.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplatform -> multiform, formulation, formulator 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory cockatrice.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multiplayer -> multiplier, multiplexer cockatrice.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplatform -> multiform, formulation, formulator cockatrice.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib cockatrice.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id cockatrice.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id cockatrice.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cockatrice cockatrice.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary oracle cockatrice.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary servatrice 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/sagitter/1448778-cockatrice/srpm/cockatrice.spec 2017-05-24 11:40:00.683817753 +0200 +++ /home/sagitter/1448778-cockatrice/srpm-unpacked/cockatrice.spec 2017-05-24 07:04:49.000000000 +0200 @@ -10,14 +10,5 @@ Group: Amusements/Games -# * Public Domain (cockatrice/resources/countries/*.svg) -# * GPLv2+ (most of the code) -# * BSD (cockatrice/src/qt-json/, common/sfmt/, -# * GPLv2 (oracle/src/zip/) -# * CPL or LGPLv2 (servatrice/src/smtp/) -# # Webclient code (not included?) -# * ASL 2.0 (webclient/js/protobuf.js, webclient/js/long.js, -# webclient/js/bytebuffer.js) -# * MIT (webclient/js/jquery-*.js) -License: GPLv2 and Public Domain +License: GPLv2 URL: https://github.com/%{name}/%{name} Source0: https://github.com/%{name}/%{name}/archive/%{gittag0}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz @@ -103,5 +94,4 @@ * Tue May 23 2017 Link Dupont <linkdupont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 2.3.17-2 - Add hicolor-icon-theme to requires -- Updated license * Sun May 7 2017 Link Dupont <linkdupont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 2.3.17-1 Requires -------- cockatrice (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libQt5Concurrent.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5(Qt_5.9)(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Multimedia.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Multimedia.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Network.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5PrintSupport.so.5()(64bit) libQt5PrintSupport.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Sql.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Sql.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Svg.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebSockets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5WebSockets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5(Qt_5)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libprotobuf.so.12()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) wget Provides -------- cockatrice: appdata() appdata(cockatrice.appdata.xml) application() application(cockatrice.desktop) application(oracle.desktop) application(servatrice.desktop) cockatrice cockatrice(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cockatrice/cockatrice/archive/2017-05-05-Release-2.3.17.tar.gz#/cockatrice-2.3.17.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 95f78db3c2f4f93e2b007b92687cb1655ce5d6b23d72aeb85fc043f60748701e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 95f78db3c2f4f93e2b007b92687cb1655ce5d6b23d72aeb85fc043f60748701e https://linkdupont.fedorapeople.org/sources/cockatrice.appdata.xml : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 985effc48f8e3a2c70a27fa4c5881f3bbb0639a9cc83f2ea096eaba540ff629b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 985effc48f8e3a2c70a27fa4c5881f3bbb0639a9cc83f2ea096eaba540ff629b 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 1448778 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
