https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767252 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ The failure is due to the ffmpeg dependency. See below. - License confusion. README.md says "Licensed under GNU GPL version 3", which would be a License tag of "GPLv3". But the License tag in the spec file is "GPLv3+" and, indeed, the scripts have the "any later version" language, so it seems that README.md needs to be updated to match. - %{_libexecdir}/%{name} is not owned by this package, but should be. - "Requires: ffmpeg" must be removed. You cannot have a dependency on a package that is not in Fedora. See the first sentence of https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_dependencies - Using rpm to check for ffmpeg doesn't seem like the right approach to me. I recommend removing "Requires: rpm", and changing the check in src-tf-ck-codec.sh to: if type -P ffmpeg > /dev/null - "Requires: bash" is not needed; the dependency is generated automatically. - Why do you have both of these lines in %files? %license LICENSE.md %{_pkgdocdir}/LICENSE.md I don't see the point of packaging that file twice. - Consider modifying the Makefile to add -p to the install invocations, so that timestamps are preserved. Also note that -c has no effect with GNU install. - README.md has Windows-style return-newline pairs. Please convert to Unix-style line endings. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. See license issue above. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/libexec/transflac [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/libexec/transflac [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Requires on ffmpeg is not allowed. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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). [?]: 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. No %check script. [!]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.4.20 starting (python version = 3.7.4)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.20 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.20 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/jjames/1767252-transflac/review-transflac/results/transflac-1.0.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 32 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/jjames/1767252-transflac/review-transflac/results/transflac-1.0.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: transflac-1.0.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm transflac-1.0.0-1.fc32.src.rpm transflac.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Transcode -> Trans code, Trans-code, Transcendent transflac.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy transflac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transcodes -> trans codes, trans-codes, transcendent transflac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy transflac.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/transflac/README.md transflac.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Transcode -> Trans code, Trans-code, Transcendent transflac.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy transflac.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transcodes -> trans codes, trans-codes, transcendent transflac.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://bitbucket.org/gbcox/transflac/get/c9f9fb30947a189d02a2b9d900c450eda29d32ec.tar.gz#/transflac-c9f9fb30947a.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 918d7c4df38b6d79584f51e5545399805f92d5d24d747784bcac900fc27e9a65 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 918d7c4df38b6d79584f51e5545399805f92d5d24d747784bcac900fc27e9a65 Requires -------- transflac (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash bash config(transflac) coreutils ffmpeg figlet flac opus-tools procps-ng rpm rsync vorbis-tools Provides -------- transflac: config(transflac) transflac Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n transflac -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }} Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ruby, Ocaml, Java, Python, fonts, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, C/C++, Perl 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
