https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457393 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= Approved. ===== 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. The DESCRIPTION file states "License: LGPL-3". This license is also mentioned in the package's documentaion. No other license statements found in sources. [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. No license file in sources. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Spec file states "License: LGPLv3" [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 [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. The package naming guidelines say: "the maintainer must use the dash '-' as the delimiter for name parts" However, this package uses a full stop as a separator between parts. The R packaging guidlines say: "Packages of R modules have their own naming scheme. They should take into account the upstream name of the R module. This makes a package name format of R-$NAME. When in doubt, use the name of the module that you type to import it in R." So according to this the name with the full stop should be used. Since the package R-BSgenome.Celegans.UCSC.ce2 already exists in Fedora using the name with the full stop is consistent with the naming of existing packages. [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). The reported spelling error (multi) is a false positive. [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]: 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 R: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires. [x]: The package has the standard %install section. [x]: Package requires R-core. ===== 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. [-]: 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. R: [x]: The %check macro is present [x]: Latest version is packaged. Note: Latest upstream version is 1.1.9, packaged version is 1.1.9 ===== 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: R-lambda.r-1.1.9-1.fc27.noarch.rpm R-lambda.r-1.1.9-1.fc27.src.rpm R-lambda.r.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti R-lambda.r.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory R-lambda.r.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- R-lambda.r (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): R-RUnit R-core Provides -------- R-lambda.r: R-lambda.r Source checksums ---------------- ftp://cran.r-project.org/pub/R/contrib/main/lambda.r_1.1.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 24c8c46802395463045a11086701051727808ad3d3bc920da571e88de341c2c8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 24c8c46802395463045a11086701051727808ad3d3bc920da571e88de341c2c8 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 1457393 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, R, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, 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
