https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450590 --- Comment #18 from James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like) BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (unspecified)", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 235 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora- scm/1450590-watchman/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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. [!]: 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 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 [!]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in watchman-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: watchman-4.7.0-4.fc28.x86_64.rpm watchman-debuginfo-4.7.0-4.fc28.x86_64.rpm watchman-4.7.0-4.fc28.src.rpm watchman.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib watchman.x86_64: E: world-writable /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary watchman 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: watchman-debuginfo-4.7.0-4.fc28.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 watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Debug -> Bug watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) information -> incantation watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) for -> fora, foo watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) package watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US This -> Thuds watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US package watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US provides -> profiles watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US information -> incantation watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US for -> fora, foo watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Debug -> Bug watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US is -> ii, iv, Cs watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US useful -> segfault watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US when -> wheel watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US developing watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US applications -> incantations watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US that -> hat, path watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US use -> user watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US this -> thuds watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US or -> op, xor watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debugging -> chugging watchman-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://facebook.github.io/watchman/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) file -> life, fine, filter watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) watching -> patching, scratching watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) service -> server watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exists -> chemists watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US to -> toy watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US watch -> patch, batch watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US files -> profiles watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US and -> handle watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US record -> core watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US when -> wheel watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US they -> theory watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US actually -> acolyte watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US change -> channel watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US It -> Bit, Kit, Ii watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US also -> alt watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US trigger -> trivial watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US actions -> incantations watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US such -> munch watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US as -> gas, Cs, Ks watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rebuilding -> foregrounding watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US assets -> gasses watchman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matching -> patching, scratching watchman.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://facebook.github.io/watchman/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> watchman.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib watchman.x86_64: E: world-writable /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/watchman 2777 watchman.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: E: zero-length /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty watchman.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary watchman 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 47 warnings. Requires -------- watchman-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): watchman (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpcre.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) pcre rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- watchman-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) watchman-debuginfo watchman-debuginfo(x86-64) watchman: watchman watchman(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/facebook/watchman/archive/v4.7.0.tar.gz#/watchman-4.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 77c7174c59d6be5e17382e414db4907a298ca187747c7fcb2ceb44da3962c6bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 77c7174c59d6be5e17382e414db4907a298ca187747c7fcb2ceb44da3962c6bf 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 1450590 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 ====== SUMMARY ====== We're almost there. Apologies for the delay on trying to get to this. There was a 4.9.0 release 16th August that should be updated to and tested. the %install has a rm -rf of %{buildroot} which shouldn't be there. There's an extraneous empty hidden files that should be cleaned up in the %install: /var/lib/watchman/.not-empty ... filesystem is not git and rpm is aware of what should or should not be there ;) Fix up those last few bits and this will be approved. -- 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
