https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2008736 Sandro Mani <manisandro@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Environment| |If this bug requires | |documentation, please | |select an appropriate Doc | |Type value. Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani <manisandro@xxxxxxxxx> --- Issues: - Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - Could update to 1.5.4 Please change $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to %{buildroot} when importing. Approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros ===== 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. [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 [-]: 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. [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 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]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: 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: [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [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: [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 ------- rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 ======================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ======================================================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 pigeonascent.noarch: W: no-documentation pigeonascent.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/pigeonascent.desktop godot-runner ======================================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ======================================================= Source checksums ---------------- http://www.identicalsoftware.com/pigeonascent/pigeonascent-1.5.2.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cb530893c27d57fa2c8854c70945a278dccedfecb6b502b6e97f5512a1fbca62 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cb530893c27d57fa2c8854c70945a278dccedfecb6b502b6e97f5512a1fbca62 Requires -------- pigeonascent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): godot-runner hicolor-icon-theme Provides -------- pigeonascent: application() application(pigeonascent.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(pigeonascent.metainfo.xml) pigeonascent Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2008736 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, PHP, Python, fonts, 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2008736 _______________________________________________ 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
