https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1782942 Mat Booth <mat.booth@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Mat Booth <mat.booth@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Issues: ======= - License file LICENSE is not marked as %license - Typographical error in URL: bitbucker.org -> bitbucket.org - Spelling error in description: whitespace -> white-space If you fix these three minor problems, then this package is APPROVED 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]: 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]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: 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]: 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. [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]: 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 Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build ===== 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. [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. [-]: 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]: 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: decentxml-1.4-20.fc32.noarch.rpm decentxml-javadoc-1.4-20.fc32.noarch.rpm decentxml-1.4-20.fc32.src.rpm decentxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitespace -> white space, white-space, whites pace decentxml.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://bitbucker.org/digulla/decentxml <urlopen error timed out> decentxml-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://bitbucker.org/digulla/decentxml <urlopen error timed out> decentxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitespace -> white space, white-space, whites pace decentxml.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://bitbucker.org/digulla/decentxml <urlopen error timed out> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/xmlts20031210.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4f03503040be97dc04eb2fd5c7a448d197e720f069a6c6f33eba1b2c2bb17706 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4f03503040be97dc04eb2fd5c7a448d197e720f069a6c6f33eba1b2c2bb17706 https://bitbucket.org/digulla/decentxml/get/r1.4.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f81e6965f4c7be613ec9159481a9ad55a9515a0c2ad679fdedd3d6e6f88cf191 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f81e6965f4c7be613ec9159481a9ad55a9515a0c2ad679fdedd3d6e6f88cf191 Requires -------- decentxml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem decentxml-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- decentxml: decentxml mvn(de.pdark:decentxml) mvn(de.pdark:decentxml:pom:) decentxml-javadoc: decentxml-javadoc -- 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
