https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733707 Björn 'besser82' Esser <besser82@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Björn 'besser82' Esser <besser82@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/fedora/review/1733707-multi-git-status/licensecheck.txt ---> License is fine. Expat and MIT are identical licenses. [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]: 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. [-]: 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 71680 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]: 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. [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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: [-]: 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]: 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. [-]: %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: [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: multi-git-status-1.0-1.20190728git2e6049d.fc31.noarch.rpm multi-git-status-1.0-1.20190728git2e6049d.fc31.src.rpm multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) untracked -> backtracked, tracked multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unpushed -> unpunished, punished, pushed multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) repos -> ropes, reps, repose multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untracked -> backtracked, tracked multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unpushed -> unpunished, punished, pushed multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps, repose multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unstaged -> unstated, upstaged, unstained multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo -> rope, rep, reps multi-git-status.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mgitstatus multi-git-status.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) untracked -> backtracked, tracked multi-git-status.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unpushed -> unpunished, punished, pushed multi-git-status.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) repos -> ropes, reps, repose multi-git-status.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untracked -> backtracked, tracked multi-git-status.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unpushed -> unpunished, punished, pushed multi-git-status.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps, repose multi-git-status.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unstaged -> unstated, upstaged, unstained multi-git-status.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo -> rope, rep, reps 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "de_DE.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "de_DE.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) untracked -> backtracked, tracked multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unpushed -> unpunished, punished, pushed multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) repos -> ropes, reps, repose multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untracked -> backtracked, tracked multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unpushed -> unpunished, punished, pushed multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps, repose multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unstaged -> unstated, upstaged, unstained multi-git-status.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo -> rope, rep, reps multi-git-status.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/fboender/multi-git-status <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> multi-git-status.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mgitstatus 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fboender/multi-git-status/archive/2e6049d4286bf26ceabf5c6ec174bd6f5fc84b32/multi-git-status-2e6049d4286bf26ceabf5c6ec174bd6f5fc84b32.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA512) this package : f441a7288647be6dffb1fc284efecc3579bd3547af80de32caf6264e3f6b22d22f55fad31fa970381208adea80889cd5b0bfab9e94f0fe0026f84f1783837649 CHECKSUM(SHA512) upstream package : f441a7288647be6dffb1fc284efecc3579bd3547af80de32caf6264e3f6b22d22f55fad31fa970381208adea80889cd5b0bfab9e94f0fe0026f84f1783837649 Requires -------- multi-git-status (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh coreutils findutils gawk git sed Provides -------- multi-git-status: multi-git-status Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -k sha512 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1733707 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, Ruby, fonts, R, PHP, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ===== Solution ===== Package APPROVED! *** (In reply to Brian (bex) Exelbierd from comment #2) > Thank you, Björn, for catching those Requires. I had on my list to test > this in a clean VM and then got distracted by something locally. > > The files are updated at the same urls. > > I noticed that your suggestions includes a few things like sed that seem to > be default installed in Fedora. Is there a good way to catch those, other > than looking for them (and focusing on them) in a read of the script? You're welcome! Besides checking the script closely for the used commands, one can run the script using `bash -x $script` which will result in verbose console output, listing all commands executed by the script. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
