https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827887 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Looks pretty good. A few niggles, but you can correct those before you import. I don't do a lot of mingw packages, so please do double check the review also. XXX APPROVED XXX Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ^ Please use the %license macro for the LICENSE files. - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: mingw32-biblesync, mingw64-biblesync. Illegal package name: mingw32-biblesync, mingw64-biblesync. Does not provide -static: mingw32-biblesync, mingw64-biblesync. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries ^ The *.dll.a files aren't static libraries, so I think this is a false positive. Please double check this. (There aren't any static libraries in the package at all.) ===== 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1827887-mingw-biblesync/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package ^ They go into the mingw subpackages, so this is OK. [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. ^ Looks OK. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: 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 20480 bytes in 12 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]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mingw32-biblesync , mingw64-biblesync ^ Not necessary for mingw packages. [?]: Package functions as described. ^ I haven't tested this. [x]: 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. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: mingw32-biblesync : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/biblesync.pc mingw64-biblesync : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/biblesync.pc ^ Correct for mingw packages. [-]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ^ Builds here in mock, but I've not tested it on koji for the other architectures yet. [-]: %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: mingw32-biblesync-2.0.1-1.fc33.noarch.rpm mingw64-biblesync-2.0.1-1.fc33.noarch.rpm mingw-biblesync-2.0.1-1.fc33.src.rpm mingw32-biblesync.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> simulcast mingw32-biblesync.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libbiblesync.dll.a mingw32-biblesync.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libbiblesync.dll.a mingw32-biblesync.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/biblesync.pc mingw32-biblesync.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-w64-mingw32 mingw64-biblesync.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> simulcast mingw64-biblesync.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libbiblesync.dll.a mingw64-biblesync.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libbiblesync.dll.a mingw64-biblesync.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/biblesync.pc mingw64-biblesync.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr x86_64-w64-mingw32 mingw-biblesync.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> simulcast 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings. ^ These do not seem to apply to mingw packages. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- mingw32-biblesync.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> simulcast mingw32-biblesync.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.xiphos.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> mingw64-biblesync.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multicast -> simulcast mingw64-biblesync.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.xiphos.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. ^ URL exists. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/karlkleinpaste/biblesync/releases/download/2.0.1/biblesync-2.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 953eed0b0ee7e4f8c6c34f7871babed26f03049e4dad5fc222fe3a65811a4d16 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 953eed0b0ee7e4f8c6c34f7871babed26f03049e4dad5fc222fe3a65811a4d16 Requires -------- mingw32-biblesync (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll) mingw32(libintl-8.dll) mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32(rpcrt4.dll) mingw32(ws2_32.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw32-pkg-config mingw64-biblesync (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libgcc_s_seh-1.dll) mingw64(libintl-8.dll) mingw64(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64(rpcrt4.dll) mingw64(ws2_32.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw64-pkg-config Provides -------- mingw32-biblesync: mingw32(libbiblesync.dll) mingw32-biblesync mingw64-biblesync: mingw64(libbiblesync.dll) mingw64-biblesync Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1827887 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, R, C/C++ 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
