https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767235 Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx> --- There are man pages; you should install and package them, probably instead of the markdown versions. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/direnv See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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]: 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", "Expat License". 132 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in 1767235-direnv/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: direnv (description) [-]: 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. [?]: 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 102400 bytes in 17 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]: 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 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]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: direnv-2.20.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm direnv-2.20.1-1.fc32.src.rpm direnv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary direnv direnv.src: E: specfile-error warning: -u use in %forgemeta is deprecated, use -z instead to select a separate set of rpm variables! 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: direnv-debuginfo-2.20.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- direnv.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/direnv/direnv <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> direnv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary direnv direnv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/direnv/direnv <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/direnv/direnv/archive/v2.20.1/direnv-2.20.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dd54393661602bb989ee880f14c41f7a7b47a153777999509127459edae52e47 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dd54393661602bb989ee880f14c41f7a7b47a153777999509127459edae52e47 Requires -------- direnv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- direnv: direnv direnv(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1767235 -L direnv/ Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }} Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Python, Haskell, Java, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Built with local dependencies: direnv/golang-github-direnv-dotenv-devel-0-0.1.20191105git4cce6d1.fc32.noarch.rpm -- 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
