https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744570 Matej Mužila <mmuzila@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(fjanus@xxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #1 from Matej Mužila <mmuzila@xxxxxxxxxx> --- - Package does not contain license file (COPYRIGHT) provided by upstream. - Missing require: %{?postgresql_module_requires} - %check phase is missing Other notes: - I'd use text provided by upstream [1] as a description - spec file contains whitespaces at ends of lines - spec file contains lines longer than 80 characters. In this case it is not necessary. 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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause)", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (unspecified)". 56 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1744570-pg_repack/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/pgsql, /usr/share/pgsql/extension [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: 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]: 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 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]: 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pg_repack [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pg_repack-1.4.4-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm pg_repack-debuginfo-1.4.4-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm pg_repack-debugsource-1.4.4-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm pg_repack-1.4.4-1.fc30.src.rpm pg_repack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postgres -> postures, postgraduates pg_repack.x86_64: W: no-documentation pg_repack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pg_repack pg_repack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postgres -> postures, postgraduates pg_repack.src:22: W: setup-not-quiet 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pg_repack-debuginfo-1.4.4-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 = "en_US.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 = "en_US.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 = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory pg_repack-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://reorg.github.io/pg_repack/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> pg_repack-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://reorg.github.io/pg_repack/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> pg_repack.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postgres -> postures, postgraduates pg_repack.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://reorg.github.io/pg_repack/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> pg_repack.x86_64: W: no-documentation pg_repack.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pg_repack 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- pg_repack: /usr/lib64/pgsql/pg_repack.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/reorg/pg_repack/archive/ver_1.4.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b9f00d6e0b4d39460670610719d9e5510273b1396b18f2f2a5d35e080bcde255 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b9f00d6e0b4d39460670610719d9e5510273b1396b18f2f2a5d35e080bcde255 Requires -------- pg_repack (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpq.so.5()(64bit) libpq.so.5(RHPG_9.6)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) pg_repack-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pg_repack-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pg_repack: pg_repack pg_repack(x86-64) pg_repack-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pg_repack-debuginfo pg_repack-debuginfo(x86-64) pg_repack-debugsource: pg_repack-debugsource pg_repack-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-30-x86_64 -b 1744570 Buildroot used: fedora-30-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, Java, R, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH --- [1] http://reorg.github.io/pg_repack/ -- 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
