https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519747 --- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Why do you use a patch instead of using iconv in %prep? %prep %setup -q iconv --from=ISO-8859-1 --to=UTF-8 AUTHORS > AUTHORS.new && \ touch -r AUTHORS AUTHORS.new && \ mv AUTHORS.new AUTHORS - Escape the macros in your changelog entry by doubling the % - As mentioned before, COPYING should be included with %license, not %doc - Still have utf-8 errors for this 3 files: libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/AUTHORS libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/COPYING libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/sample_files.zip Patching doesn't change encoding, see first point. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/libdigidocpp See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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", "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* Ms-RL", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 199 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libdigidocpp/review- libdigidocpp/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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. [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 81920 bytes in 10 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]: 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]: %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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libdigidocpp-debuginfo , libdigidocpp-debugsource [?]: 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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libdigidocpp-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libdigidocpp-devel-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libdigidocpp-doc-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libdigidocpp-debuginfo-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libdigidocpp-debugsource-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm libdigidocpp-3.13.2-1.fc28.src.rpm libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/878252.p12 libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/OpenDocument_dsig.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/OpenDocument_manifest.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/XAdES01903v132-201601-relaxed.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/XAdES01903v132-201601.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/XAdES01903v141-201601.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/conf.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/en_31916201v010101.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/ts_119612v020101_additionaltypes_xsd.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/ts_119612v020101_sie_xsd.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/ts_119612v020201_201601xsd.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/xml.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp/AUTHORS libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp/COPYING libdigidocpp-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libdigidocpp-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-devel/AUTHORS libdigidocpp-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-devel/COPYING libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/AUTHORS libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/COPYING libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/sample_files.zip libdigidocpp-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation libdigidocpp.src:99: W: macro-in-%changelog %make_build libdigidocpp.src:100: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot} libdigidocpp.src:100: W: macro-in-%changelog %make_install libdigidocpp.src:101: W: macro-in-%changelog %clean libdigidocpp.src:101: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot} libdigidocpp.src:102: W: macro-in-%changelog %license libdigidocpp.src:102: W: macro-in-%changelog %doc libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{name} libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{version} libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{release} libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{name} libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{version} libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{release} libdigidocpp.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 10) 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 36 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
