https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325477 --- Comment #4 from Mike Molina <mmolina.unphysics@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3) > - Group: is not used in Fedora > > - This is not needed in %install > > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > - This is not needed either: > > %clean > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > > - Only use this one time, no need for the first one: > > %find_lang %{name} --with-man > > - Separate your %changelog entries by an empty line > > - The license files must be installed with %license, not %doc: > > %files -f %{name}.lang > %license COPYING LICENCIA > %doc README.md LEAME.md NEWS ChangeLog AUTHORS DEPENDENCIES > > - Please be more specific in %files: > > %{_bindir}/kalendas > %{_mandir}/man1/kalendas.1.* > %{_infodir}/kalendas.info.gz > > - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build > > - it would be nice to also split the BR for readability: > > BuildRequires: gcc > BuildRequires: texinfo >= 4.13a > BuildRequires: gettext >= 0.17 > BuildRequires: perl-libintl >= 1.20 > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(bash-completion) > > > > > 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 COPYING is not marked as %license > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > > ===== 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. > [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "FSF All Permissive License", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or > generated", "GNU Free Documentation License", "GPL (v7)", "GNU Free > Documentation License (v1.3 or later)", "Expat License", "GPL (v2 or > later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "FSF Unlimited License (with > Retention)". 64 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/kalendas/review- > kalendas/licensecheck.txt > [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]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if > package has .info files. > Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in kalendas > [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. > [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]: 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 112640 bytes in 8 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: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [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]: 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: > [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) > Note: %clean present but not required > [-]: 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]: 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. > [x]: %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]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. > [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 all installed packages. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: kalendas-1.3.1-2.fc30.noarch.rpm > kalendas-1.3.1-2.fc30.src.rpm > kalendas.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found es > kalendas.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found pt_BR > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Thank you for your recommendations! I have made the respective adjustments in the SPEC file with a new revision of the package. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mikemolina/kalendas-rpm/gh-pages/spec/kalendas.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/mikemolina/kalendas-rpm/raw/gh-pages/fedora/rawhide/SRPMS/kalendas-1.3.1-3.fc30.src.rpm Scratch build satisfactory for rawhide (fc31) through koji system. Koji rawhide build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33139345 -- 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
