https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1905260 Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- > URL: https://github.com/bbonev/yascreen/ > Source0: https://github.com/bbonev/yascreen/releases/download/v%{version}/yascreen-%{version}.tar.xz > Source1: https://github.com/bbonev/yascreen/releases/download/v%{version}/yascreen-%{version}.tar.xz.asc You can reuse the URL in other fields with the %{url} macro. > # to remove after EPEL7 becomes obsolete > %ldconfig_scriptlets On Fedora one should use direct ldconfig calls, I think: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_linker_configuration_files The rest looks good! Approved! Please, fix above on import. Full review below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3.0 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/yascreen/yascreen/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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 30720 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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 yascreen-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: yascreen-1.85-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm yascreen-devel-1.85-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm yascreen-debuginfo-1.85-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm yascreen-debugsource-1.85-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm yascreen-1.85-1.fc32.src.rpm yascreen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdin -> stein, stain, stdio yascreen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out yascreen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wcwidth -> width yascreen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linenoise -> line noise, line-noise, noiseless yascreen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdin -> stein, stain, stdio yascreen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out yascreen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wcwidth -> width yascreen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linenoise -> line noise, line-noise, noiseless 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: yascreen-debuginfo-1.85-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name yascreen-debuginfo (none): E: no installed packages by name yascreen (none): E: no installed packages by name yascreen-debugsource (none): E: no installed packages by name yascreen-devel 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bbonev/yascreen/master/debian/upstream/signing-key.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fca688fa9ef68202009a3403e7de763d5fbd77d50d270a896b098dc1e44bef07 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fca688fa9ef68202009a3403e7de763d5fbd77d50d270a896b098dc1e44bef07 https://github.com/bbonev/yascreen/releases/download/v1.85/yascreen-1.85.tar.xz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 33df2068dc221a16428b03ba4c98ca5fd89c6d96a055941e3bb3206ebb75fadc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 33df2068dc221a16428b03ba4c98ca5fd89c6d96a055941e3bb3206ebb75fadc https://github.com/bbonev/yascreen/releases/download/v1.85/yascreen-1.85.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 90e3d84d4b02a86c344fb02c7ad7ccf48e77e65b2566faffc2a163ff587e9b13 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 90e3d84d4b02a86c344fb02c7ad7ccf48e77e65b2566faffc2a163ff587e9b13 Requires -------- yascreen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) yascreen-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libyascreen.so.0()(64bit) yascreen(x86-64) yascreen-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): yascreen-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- yascreen: libyascreen.so.0()(64bit) libyascreen.so.0(YASCREEN_1.79)(64bit) libyascreen.so.0(YASCREEN_1.83)(64bit) yascreen yascreen(x86-64) yascreen-devel: pkgconfig(yascreen) yascreen-devel yascreen-devel(x86-64) yascreen-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) yascreen-debuginfo yascreen-debuginfo(x86-64) yascreen-debugsource: yascreen-debugsource yascreen-debugsource(x86-64) -- 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
