https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1701204 Vitaly Zaitsev <vitaly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |vitaly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Vitaly Zaitsev <vitaly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Expat License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "Expat License Public domain". 945 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vitaly/1701204-howl/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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: [x]: 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 howl- debuginfo , howl-debugsource [x]: 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]: 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 6789120 bytes in /usr/share [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: howl-0.6-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm howl-debuginfo-0.6-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm howl-debugsource-0.6-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm howl-0.6-4.fc31.src.rpm howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) centric -> eccentric, centrist, concentric howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic howl.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> howl.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/howl/bundles/c/misc/example.c howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/coffeescript/misc/example.coffee 644 /usr/bin/coffee howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/moonscript/misc/example.moon 644 /usr/bin/moon howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/howl/bundles/python/misc/examples.py /usr/bin/env python howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/python/misc/examples.py 644 /usr/bin/env python howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/howl/bundles/ruby/misc/example.rb /usr/bin/env ruby howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/ruby/misc/example.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs [allow(unused)] howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs 644 [allow(unused)] howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl-spec howl-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> howl-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> howl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) centric -> eccentric, centrist, concentric howl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic howl.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: howl-debuginfo-0.6-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm howl-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) centric -> eccentric, centrist, concentric howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic howl.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> howl.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/howl/bundles/c/misc/example.c howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/coffeescript/misc/example.coffee 644 /usr/bin/coffee howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/moonscript/misc/example.moon 644 /usr/bin/moon howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/howl/bundles/python/misc/examples.py /usr/bin/env python howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/python/misc/examples.py 644 /usr/bin/env python howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/howl/bundles/ruby/misc/example.rb /usr/bin/env ruby howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/ruby/misc/example.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs [allow(unused)] howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs 644 [allow(unused)] howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl-spec 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 8 warnings. Requires -------- howl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): howl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): howl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/ruby /usr/bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) luajit(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- howl-debugsource: howl-debugsource howl-debugsource(x86-64) howl-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) howl-debuginfo howl-debuginfo(x86-64) howl: application() application(howl.desktop) howl howl(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(howl.appdata.xml) mimehandler(text/plain) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/howl-editor/howl/releases/download/0.6/howl-0.6.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 834b06e423d360c97197e7abec99b623fdc5ed3a0c39b88d6467e499074585e1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 834b06e423d360c97197e7abec99b623fdc5ed3a0c39b88d6467e499074585e1 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1701204 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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
