https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763261 --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Looks pretty good. Few minor issues, most of them cosmetic: - Release should be 1 instead of 0 - 1.11 seems available - gzip shouldn't be required as BR - should the file be in %{_libexecdir} or a package specific folder in %_datadir? - the spec is missing a URL tag - you don't need to use projname and desc macros here since they're only being used once. - you can use %autosetup instead of the setup macro: https://rpm.org/user_doc/autosetup.html Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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 [-]: 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. [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. ^ Should the script go in libexecdir or another directory? I see git put it's script in /usr/share/.. (%_datadir) [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. ^ I don't think gzip needs to be included as a BR. [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. [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 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. ^ An issue is filed here already: https://github.com/rupa/z/issues/273 Maybe worth adding in the spec as a comment. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. ^ Not tested yet. [!]: Latest version is packaged. ^ Looks like upstream released 1.11 as a tag. Worth using that: https://github.com/rupa/z/releases/tag/v1.11 [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]: 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: z-1.9-0.fc32.noarch.rpm z-1.9-0.fc32.src.rpm z.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frecency -> frequency z.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frecent -> recent, f recent, frequent z.noarch: W: no-url-tag z.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frecency -> frequency z.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frecent -> recent, f recent, frequent z.src: W: no-url-tag 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. ^ Please add a URL tag to the spec. 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_GB.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_GB.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). z.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frecency -> frequency z.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frecent -> recent, f recent, frequent z.noarch: W: no-url-tag 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rupa/z/archive/v1.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e2860e4f65770e02297ca4ca08ec1ee623a658bd9cc1acddbbe5ad22e1de70a7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e2860e4f65770e02297ca4ca08ec1ee623a658bd9cc1acddbbe5ad22e1de70a7 Requires -------- z (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- z: z Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1763261 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }} Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, fonts, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, Python, Ocaml 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
