https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767883 --- Comment #6 from Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Dist tag is present. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. -> README file contains zlib license [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: This was found on F31 which is correct. On EL-8 it does not conflict [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. [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. [-]: 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 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 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]: 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. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: minizip1.2-1.2.11-22.x86_64.rpm minizip1.2-devel-1.2.11-22.x86_64.rpm minizip1.2-debuginfo-1.2.11-22.x86_64.rpm minizip1.2-debugsource-1.2.11-22.x86_64.rpm minizip1.2-1.2.11-22.src.rpm minizip1.2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Minizip -> Mini zip, Mini-zip, Minimize minizip1.2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minizip -> mini zip, mini-zip, minimize minizip1.2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib minizip1.2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation minizip1.2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Minizip -> Mini zip, Mini-zip, Minimize minizip1.2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minizip -> mini zip, mini-zip, minimize minizip1.2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: minizip1.2-debuginfo-1.2.11-22.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"). minizip1.2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zlib.net/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> minizip1.2-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zlib.net/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> minizip1.2-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zlib.net/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> minizip1.2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation minizip1.2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Minizip -> Mini zip, Mini-zip, Minimize minizip1.2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minizip -> mini zip, mini-zip, minimize minizip1.2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib minizip1.2.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.zlib.net/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- http://www.zlib.net/zlib-1.2.11.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4ff941449631ace0d4d203e3483be9dbc9da454084111f97ea0a2114e19bf066 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4ff941449631ace0d4d203e3483be9dbc9da454084111f97ea0a2114e19bf066 Requires -------- minizip1.2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) minizip1.2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libminizip.so.1()(64bit) minizip1.2(x86-64) zlib-devel(x86-64) minizip1.2-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): minizip1.2-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- minizip1.2: libminizip.so.1()(64bit) minizip-compat minizip1.2 minizip1.2(x86-64) minizip1.2-devel: minizip-compat-devel minizip1.2-devel minizip1.2-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(minizip) minizip1.2-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) minizip1.2-debuginfo minizip1.2-debuginfo(x86-64) minizip1.2-debugsource: minizip1.2-debugsource minizip1.2-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1767883 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }} Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, Python, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, Java 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
