https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468768 Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr@xxxxxxxxx> --- Great; the package now looks good. APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "ISC BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* EPL (v1.0)", "EPL (v1.0)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSL (v1.0)", "CC by", "GPL (v3.0 or later)", "zlib/libpng", "BSD (3 clause)", "*No copyright* zlib/libpng", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "*No copyright* BSL (v1.0)", "BSD (2 clause)", "BSD (unspecified)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v3 or later)". 1775 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1468768-domoticz/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 92160 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in domoticz-debuginfo [x]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: domoticz-3.5877-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm domoticz-debuginfo-3.5877-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm domoticz-3.5877-2.fc27.src.rpm domoticz.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/domoticz/www/styles/elemental/fonts/DroidSans.ttf %{_fontdir}/google-droid/DroidSans.ttf domoticz.x86_64: W: pem-certificate /usr/share/domoticz/server_cert.pem domoticz.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/domoticz/scripts/_domoticz_main 644 /bin/sh domoticz.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/domoticz domoticz domoticz.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/domoticz domoticz domoticz.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/domoticz/updatedomo 644 /bin/sh domoticz.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id domoticz.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id domoticz.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/domoticz/scripts/buienradar_rain_example.pl 644 /usr/bin/perl -w domoticz.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/domoticz/www/styles/element-light/fonts/DroidSans.ttf %{_fontdir}/google-droid/DroidSans.ttf domoticz.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/domoticz/www/styles/element-dark/fonts/DroidSans.ttf %{_fontdir}/google-droid/DroidSans.ttf domoticz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary domoticz domoticz.src:37: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-ace) domoticz.src:40: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-blockly) domoticz.src:41: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-bootbox) domoticz.src:43: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-colpick) domoticz.src:44: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-d3) domoticz.src:52: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-ngdraggable) domoticz.src:53: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-nggrid) domoticz.src:59: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-ozwcp) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 17 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: domoticz-debuginfo-3.5877-2.fc27.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 domoticz.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/domoticz/scripts/_domoticz_main 644 /bin/sh domoticz.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/domoticz/scripts/buienradar_rain_example.pl 644 /usr/bin/perl -w domoticz.x86_64: W: pem-certificate /usr/share/domoticz/server_cert.pem domoticz.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/domoticz/updatedomo 644 /bin/sh domoticz.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/domoticz/www/styles/element-dark/fonts/DroidSans.ttf %{_fontdir}/google-droid/DroidSans.ttf domoticz.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/domoticz/www/styles/element-light/fonts/DroidSans.ttf %{_fontdir}/google-droid/DroidSans.ttf domoticz.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/domoticz/www/styles/elemental/fonts/DroidSans.ttf %{_fontdir}/google-droid/DroidSans.ttf domoticz.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/domoticz domoticz domoticz.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/domoticz domoticz domoticz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary domoticz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 7 warnings. Requires -------- domoticz (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(domoticz) google-droid-sans-fonts libboost_atomic.so.1.63.0()(64bit) libboost_chrono.so.1.63.0()(64bit) libboost_date_time.so.1.63.0()(64bit) libboost_system.so.1.63.0()(64bit) libboost_thread.so.1.63.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) liblua-5.3.so()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmosquittopp.so.1()(64bit) libopenzwave.so.1.4()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1()(64bit) libssl.so.1.1(OPENSSL_1_1_0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.8)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libusb-0.1.so.4()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) shadow-utils systemd domoticz-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- domoticz: bundled(js-ace) bundled(js-angular-ui-bootstrap) bundled(js-angularamd) bundled(js-angularjs) bundled(js-blockly) bundled(js-bootbox) bundled(js-bootstrap) bundled(js-colpick) bundled(js-d3) bundled(js-datatables-datatools) bundled(js-dateformat) bundled(js-filesaver) bundled(js-highcharts) bundled(js-html5shiv) bundled(js-i18next) bundled(js-ion-sound) bundled(js-jquery) bundled(js-jquery-noty) bundled(js-less) bundled(js-ngdraggable) bundled(js-nggrid) bundled(js-ozwcp) bundled(js-require) bundled(js-respond) bundled(js-wow) bundled(js-zeroclipboard) config(domoticz) domoticz domoticz(x86-64) domoticz-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) domoticz-debuginfo domoticz-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/domoticz/domoticz/archive/3.5877.tar.gz#/domoticz-3.5877.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fb88edbe428851a7a337a85faa93f6da00713b3ad086ff6957031dc9b3b58bba CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fb88edbe428851a7a337a85faa93f6da00713b3ad086ff6957031dc9b3b58bba Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1468768 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++, Perl Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, 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
