https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471806 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello, A few comments - You should use %make_build instead of make %{?_smp_mflags} - You should add a Categories to your desktop file - /usr/bin/update-desktop-database &>/dev/null ||: is not needed as your desktop file does not contain a MimeType key. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database_.28Needs_description.29 - In %files, line "%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/": aren't you missing a * at the end or just statusicon.svg, since it's the only file. - The Group: tag mutn't be included in Fedora spec file. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections - %defattr(-,root,root,-) is not needed You have a rpmlint error like on your other package: - debuginfo-without-sources: This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files. This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo extraction not working as expected. Verify that the binaries are not unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/danmaQ/review- danmaQ/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora- logos) [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. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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 danmaQ [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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in danmaQ- debuginfo [?]: 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. [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]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: danmaQ-0.2-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm danmaQ-debuginfo-0.2-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm danmaQ-0.2-1.fc27.src.rpm danmaQ.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) danmaku -> Danubian danmaQ.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US danmaku -> Danubian danmaQ.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib danmaQ.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id danmaQ.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id danmaQ.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary danmaQ danmaQ-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources danmaQ.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) danmaku -> Danubian danmaQ.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US danmaku -> Danubian 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Thanks. -- 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
