https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843646 dorothy <babydorothy69@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |babydorothy69@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #12 from dorothy <babydorothy69@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michael S. from comment #1) > Hi, > > while doing the review, I noted the font embedded is non free : > > https://yofonts.com/ ( has font but not displayed ) > > http://www.dafont.com/share-regular.font ( and the code speak of > urbanfonts.com but the font is not there ). > > The bundled sound is also under creative common license, but that's not > clear of the version and type of CC ( > http://www.freesound.org/people/junggle/sounds/29297/ ). Ie CC-BY-NC would > not be ok. > > There is also some bundled code ( sugargame ) and I think there is a missing > requires on pygame. > > And since there is bundled flag, I think a exception should be granted by > FESCO : > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Maintainers_Flags_Policy > > > Anyway : > > > Package Review > ============== > > Key: > - = N/A > x = Pass > ! = Fail > ? = Not evaluated > > > > ==== Generic ==== > [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > [!]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and > meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at > least one supported primary architecture. > [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any > that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present > Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine > [!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. > [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. > [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) > Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required > [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 > [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package > [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. > [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. > [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at > the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required > [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. > [x]: MUST 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 %doc. > [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "GPL (v3 or later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: > /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/843646-sugar-india/licensecheck.txt > [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. > [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. > Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) > [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > [-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. > [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. > [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [x]: MUST Package installs properly. > [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. > [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. > Note: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. > [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. > [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. > [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, > /usr/sbin. > [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm > -q > --requires). > [-]: SHOULD Package functions as described. > [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. > [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from > upstream. > [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > [-]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. > Note: Source0 (i_know_india-2.xo) > [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. > [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file > contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all > supported > architectures. > [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. > [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. > [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. > > Issues: > [!]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and > meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "GPL (v3 or later)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: > /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/843646-sugar-india/licensecheck.txt > [!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: sugar-india-2-2.fc17.noarch.rpm > sugar-india-2-2.fc17.src.rpm > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > Requires > -------- > sugar-india-2-2.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > /usr/bin/env > /usr/bin/python > sugar > > Provides > -------- > sugar-india-2-2.fc17.noarch.rpm: > > sugar-india = 2-2.fc17 > > MD5-sum check > ------------- > http://download.sugarlabs.org/activities/4587/i_know_india-2.xo : > MD5SUM this package : a323c992d2d9866a6073d98db0e77725 > MD5SUM upstream package : a323c992d2d9866a6073d98db0e77725 > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (a5c4ced) last change: 2012-07-22 > Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 843646 > External plugins: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843646 _______________________________________________ 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
