https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480972 Robert-André Mauchin (afk until next Thu) <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin (afk until next Thu) <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello, - XCB Authors is not a valid license. This package is licenced under Sam Hocevar's WTFPL. The list of licenses which can be imported in Fedora is available here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses - You could make the description a bit longer. For example take the one from their githb page: xgbutil is a utility library designed to work with the X Go Binding. This project's main goal is to make various X related tasks easier. For example, binding keys, using the EWMH or ICCCM specs with the window manager, moving/resizing windows, assigning function callbacks to particular events, drawing images to a window, etc. - The changelog doesn't contain your own entry. - Some dependecies, golang(github.com/BurntSushi/freetype-go/freetype/truetype) and golang(github.com/BurntSushi/graphics-go/graphics)… I haven't yet seen you propose package reviews for these too. It would be great if you add them first otherwise you won't be able to build anything in Koji. - There shouldn't be a dot at the end of the Summary: tag. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "do What The Fuck you want to Public License (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 76 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/golang-github-BurntSushi- xgbutil/review-golang-github-BurntSushi-xgbutil/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src, /usr/share/gocode, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/BurntSushi(golang-github-BurntSushi- xgb-devel, golang-github-BurntSushi-toml-devel, golang-github- BurntSushi-xgbutil-devel) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: 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]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: golang-github-BurntSushi-xgbutil-devel-0-0.1.fc26.noarch.rpm golang-github-BurntSushi-xgbutil-0-0.1.fc26.src.rpm golang-github-BurntSushi-xgbutil-devel.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C XGB is the X protocol Go language Binding. golang-github-BurntSushi-xgbutil.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C XGB is the X protocol Go language Binding. golang-github-BurntSushi-xgbutil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resizing -> residing, re sizing, re-sizing 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. -- 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
