https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1633411 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Own this directory: [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/gitit Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file BLUETRIP-LICENSE is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. [!]: 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)", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Public License (v2.5)", "Expat License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 90 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gitit/review- gitit/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/gitit [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. [x]: 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: gitit-devel. [x]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in gitit [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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2887680 bytes in /usr/share [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: gitit-0.12.2.1-1.20180816gitee9927f.fc30.x86_64.rpm gitit-devel-0.12.2.1-1.20180816gitee9927f.fc30.x86_64.rpm gitit-0.12.2.1-1.20180816gitee9927f.fc30.src.rpm gitit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) happstack -> haystack gitit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) darcs -> cards, arcs, dares gitit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pandoc -> pan doc, pan-doc, Pandora gitit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US darcs -> cards, arcs, dares gitit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filestore -> file store, file-store, files tore gitit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pandoc -> Pan doc, Pan-doc, Pandora gitit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reStructuredText -> restructured Text, restructured-text, restructure gitit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US happstack -> haystack gitit.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gitit-0.12.2.1/data/post-update 644 /bin/sh gitit.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/gitit gitit gitit.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/gitit gitit gitit.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/gitit/wiki gitit gitit.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/gitit/wiki gitit gitit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary expireGititCache gitit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gitit gitit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) happstack -> haystack gitit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) darcs -> cards, arcs, dares gitit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pandoc -> pan doc, pan-doc, Pandora gitit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US darcs -> cards, arcs, dares gitit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filestore -> file store, file-store, files tore gitit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Pandoc -> Pan doc, Pan-doc, Pandora gitit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reStructuredText -> restructured Text, restructured-text, restructure gitit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US happstack -> haystack gitit.src:151: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} gitit.src:151: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} gitit.src:151: W: macro-in-comment %{pkgver} gitit.src:197: W: macro-in-comment %pre gitit.src:198: W: macro-in-comment %post) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 27 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
