https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851735 Artem <ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Artem <ego.cordatus@xxxxxxxxx> --- 1. Please replace Source0 URL with HTTPS, it should work: https://qml.i-glu4it.ru/%{orig_name}_%{version}.tar.gz 2. Add BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils and validate it in %check 3. Recheck source file. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /mnt/data- linux/tmp/review/1851735-plasma-applet-translator/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/data- linux/tmp/review/1851735-plasma-applet-translator/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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. [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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /mnt/data-linux/tmp/review/1851735-plasma- applet-translator/srpm-unpacked/plasma-applet-translator.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: plasma-applet-translator-0.2-1.fc33.noarch.rpm plasma-applet-translator-0.2-1.fc33.src.rpm plasma-applet-translator.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plasmoid -> plasma plasma-applet-translator.noarch: W: no-documentation plasma-applet-translator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plasmoid -> plasma plasma-applet-translator.src:35: W: macro-in-comment %doc plasma-applet-translator.src: W: file-size-mismatch org.kde.plasma.translator_0.2.tar.gz = 11033, http://qml.i-glu4it.ru/org.kde.plasma.translator_0.2.tar.gz = 11067 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. plasma-applet-translator.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plasmoid -> plasma plasma-applet-translator.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- http://qml.i-glu4it.ru/org.kde.plasma.translator_0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : adf57d544ddad96d50222c5e87c0e27b8fe57b35a5fea2abe0d9c1564f371282 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 930a9522892bcdcc3663512ab3fe59f2c48a9b222f3464c6889ef6c76b88e670 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- plasma-applet-translator (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): plasma-workspace translate-shell Provides -------- plasma-applet-translator: plasma-applet-translator Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1851735 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, Python, PHP, Ocaml, C/C++, R 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
