https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758925 --- Comment #2 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= 1. License: should be GPLv2+ (you missed the +) ### COPYRIGHT --------- Copyright (C) 2009 Nicholas J. Humfrey This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. ### 2. Please ask upstream to included the actual text of the GPLv2 with the sources. 3. Please make a note that tests require network access in the spec file. Assuming you've fixed at least the License tag, the package is APPROVED. I trust you'll do it while importing. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: 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. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rathann/build/review/copr-build-1049246/review- perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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. [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 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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 Perl: [x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID-0.04-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID-debuginfo-0.04-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID-debugsource-0.04-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID-0.04-1.fc32.src.rpm perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdiscid -> disciplined perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdiscid -> disciplined perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C MusicBrainz::DiscID is a class to calculate a MusicBrainz DiscID from an audio CD in the drive. The coding style is slightly different to the C interface to libdiscid, because it makes use of perl's Object Oriented functionality. perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdiscid -> disciplined perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdiscid -> disciplined perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID.src: E: description-line-too-long C MusicBrainz::DiscID is a class to calculate a MusicBrainz DiscID from an audio CD in the drive. The coding style is slightly different to the C interface to libdiscid, because it makes use of perl's Object Oriented functionality. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID-debuginfo-0.04-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libdiscid -> disciplined perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdiscid -> disciplined perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C MusicBrainz::DiscID is a class to calculate a MusicBrainz DiscID from an audio CD in the drive. The coding style is slightly different to the C interface to libdiscid, because it makes use of perl's Object Oriented functionality. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID: /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/MusicBrainz/DiscID/DiscID.so Source checksums ---------------- https://cpan.metacpan.org/authors/id/N/NJ/NJH/MusicBrainz-DiscID-0.04.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 32f46e6e8aee10e6e3c32095cfe416647e819bcc593a3ff18aad57e6709898c4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 32f46e6e8aee10e6e3c32095cfe416647e819bcc593a3ff18aad57e6709898c4 Requires -------- perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdiscid.so.0()(64bit) libperl.so.5.30()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.30.0) perl(Carp) perl(XSLoader) perl(strict) perl(vars) rtld(GNU_HASH) perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID: perl(MusicBrainz::DiscID) perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID(x86-64) perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID-debuginfo perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID-debuginfo(x86-64) perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID-debugsource: perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID-debugsource perl-MusicBrainz-DiscID-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --copr-build https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gbcox/package_reviews/build/1049246/ Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }} Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Perl Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, R, Python, Java, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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
