https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494089 --- Comment #2 from Matt Prahl <mprahl@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > Hello, > > > - Use a more meaningful name for your archive, with: > > Source0: > https://github.com/slacka/WoeUSB/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar. > gz > > - rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should *not* be run at the beginning of %install > (or elsewhere). > > - why do you exclude the gui? > > - The %changelog must contain the version: > > * Wed Sep 20 2017 Matt Prahl <mprahl@xxxxxxxxxx> - 2.1.3-1 > > - Rpmlint error: > > WoeUSB.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/woeusb /usr/bin/env bash > > Please patch it in the SPEC with sed in %install: > > sed -i '1!b;s/env bash/bash/' %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/woeusb > > > 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or > generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", > "GPL (v3 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 71 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/bob/packaging/review/WoeUSB/review-WoeUSB/licensecheck.txt > [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [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. > [-]: 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. > [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. > [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > [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). > [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 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 > > ===== 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]: 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 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. > [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: WoeUSB-2.1.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm > WoeUSB-2.1.3-1.fc28.src.rpm > WoeUSB.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootable -> bookable, > boo table, boo-table > WoeUSB.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog > WoeUSB.x86_64: E: no-binary > WoeUSB.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > WoeUSB.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/woeusb /usr/bin/env bash > WoeUSB.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/lib/.build-id/4a/6d22882e5500cd05c94f0e3b04f45f4299622d > ../../../../usr/bin/woeusbgui > WoeUSB.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bootable -> bookable, > boo table, boo-table > WoeUSB.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Thanks for the review and the feedback! I think I've addressed your concerns and I also reenabled the GUI functionality. -- 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
