https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653201 Carmen Bianca Bakker <carmenbianca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |carmenbianca@fedoraproject. | |org --- Comment #2 from Carmen Bianca Bakker <carmenbianca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi, this is an unofficial review. Please take the below with a grain of salt. - Upstream contains no licence, but debian/copyright says that it is under LGPLv3+, not GPLv3. You should probably contact upstream about the licensing. - The following files: * plymouth-theme-deepin-15.10.7/themes/deepin-hidpi-logo/deepin-hidpi-logo.script * plymouth-theme-deepin-15.10.7/themes/deepin-hidpi-ssd-logo/deepin-hidpi-ssd-logo.script * plymouth-theme-deepin-15.10.7/themes/deepin-logo/deepin-logo.script * plymouth-theme-deepin-15.10.7/themes/deepin-ssd-logo/deepin-ssd-logo.script are under GPLv3+, not GPLv3. - <https://github.com/linuxdeepin/plymouth-theme-deepin> is not upstream, but the link to upstream doesn't work for me. - %install can be shortened to `install -D themes %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/plymouth/themes`. Otherwise, I'm not sure if `cp` should be used there instead of `install`. - Package does not use plymouth-scripts to set/unset new theme as default as can be seen in <https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/plymouth-theme-hot-dog/blob/master/f/plymouth-theme-hot-dog.spec> and other plymouth-theme packages. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [-]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Remark: Needs `Requires(post): plymouth-scripts`. See earlier comparison to plymouth-theme-hot-dog. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [?]: 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]: 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 [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. [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [-]: 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. [?]: 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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 9768960 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: plymouth-theme-deepin-15.10.7-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm plymouth-theme-deepin-15.10.7-1.fc29.src.rpm plymouth-theme-deepin.x86_64: E: no-binary plymouth-theme-deepin.x86_64: W: no-documentation plymouth-theme-deepin.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory plymouth-theme-deepin.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/linuxdeepin/plymouth-theme-deepin <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> plymouth-theme-deepin.x86_64: E: no-binary plymouth-theme-deepin.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 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
