https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1989300 Wolfgang Ulbrich <fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Wolfgang Ulbrich <fedora@xxxxxxxxx> --- PACKAGE IS APPROVED! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= ===== 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. [-]: 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. [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 245760 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]: 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]: Package functions as described. [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. [-]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint fonts: [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find repo-font-audit, install fontpackages-tools package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined [!]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find ttname command, install ttname package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.12 starting (python version = 3.9.6, NVR = mock-2.12-1.fc34)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.12 INFO: Mock Version: 2.12 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-web-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /home/rave//fedora-34-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-web-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/rave/fontawesome5-fonts/results/fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-fonts-all-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-fonts-web-5.15.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc34.src.rpm fontawesome5-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation fontawesome5-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation fontawesome5-fonts-web.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript fontawesome5-fonts-web.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript fontawesome5-fonts.src: W: strange-permission trademarks.py 775 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/archive/5.15.4/Font-Awesome-5.15.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 82c301594a566277ba3cf41e037fc03ae101727d3e5d682d09e322a53937b5ed CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 82c301594a566277ba3cf41e037fc03ae101727d3e5d682d09e322a53937b5ed Requires -------- fontawesome5-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fontawesome5-fonts-all (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fontawesome5-brands-fonts fontawesome5-free-fonts fontawesome5-fonts-web (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- fontawesome5-fonts: fontawesome5-fonts fontawesome5-fonts-all: fontawesome5-fonts-all fontawesome5-fonts-web: fontawesome5-fonts-web Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -r -n fontawesome5-fonts -m fedora-34-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-34-x86_64 Active plugins: fonts, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, Python, R, C/C++, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
