https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638743 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Ok, let's review it finally. I must admit - this isn't ideal package but I believe we'd better to include it, snart using (we already have packages which require rebar3), and improve it according to feedback from the packagers. REVIEW: [+] rpmlint produces only messages which can be ignored: Auriga ~: rpmlint erlang-rebar3-3.6.2-1.fc30.* erlang-rebar3.src: W: invalid-url Source1: rebar3-bin-3.6.2.tar.gz ^^^ We're bootstrapping it so this is expected. erlang-rebar3.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-rebar3.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ^^^ This is expected. See this link for explanation - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Peter/Erlang_Packaging_Guidelines#Debug_symbols_.2F_source_installation_.2F_dialyzer erlang-rebar3.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/rebar3.1.gz 52: warning: macro `this' not defined ^^^ Looks like this should be reported upstream. But I don't see it as a blocker. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Auriga ~: [+] The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [+/-] The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. We didn't promote Erlang Packaging Guidelines to official guidelines yet, so I've decided to omit considering them at this stage. [+] The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. [+] The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. I can't find BSD-licensed files as stated in the comment 2. [+] The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc and marked as %license. [+] The spec file is written in American English. [+] The spec file for the package is legible. [+] The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha512sum rebar3-3.6.2.tar.gz 3.6.2.tar.gz 94b2826ae1aa5679c6582bb7cc17a892f621f110b1042d69e0c63219e384c43fb2c090faa4828be2af48fab826c1f34842a6d84d24f66852e60a7f8a419a616a rebar3-3.6.2.tar.gz 94b2826ae1aa5679c6582bb7cc17a892f621f110b1042d69e0c63219e384c43fb2c090faa4828be2af48fab826c1f34842a6d84d24f66852e60a7f8a419a616a 3.6.2.tar.gz Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: [+] The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. Here is a Koji scratchbuild for Fedora 30 - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31423403 [+] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. [0] No need to handle locales. [0] The package does not contain any shared library files. [+] Packages does not bundle copies of system libraries. [+] The package isn't designed to be relocatable. [+] The package owns all directories that it creates. [+] The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [+] Permissions on files are set properly. [+] The package consistently uses macros. [+] The package contains code, or permissible content. [0] No large documentation files. [+] Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. [0] No static libraries. [0] No -devel sub-package. [+] The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. [0] Not a GUI application. [+] The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. 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 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
