https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203715 --- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Fedora review gmult-12.0-1.fc39.src.rpm 2023-08-18 $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-38-x86_64/result/gmult-* =================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 4 gmult.src: W: strange-permission gmult.spec 600 gmult.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gmult gmult.src: E: description-line-too-long Multiplication Puzzle is a simple game inspired by the multiplication game inside gmult.src: E: description-line-too-long where a 3-digit number is multiplied by a 2-digit number, yielding two intermediate gmult.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Multiplication Puzzle is a simple game inspired by the multiplication game inside gmult.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long where a 3-digit number is multiplied by a 2-digit number, yielding two intermediate ==================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s ==================================================== + OK ! needs attention ! rpmlint output Can you fix the line wrapping so that rpmlint is happy? + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. ! The license field in the spec file matches the actual license In addition to GPL licensed source code, a few files appear to be under different licenses: The .ui files in data/ui/ under CC-BY-SA-4.0, and /po/LINGUAS and po/POTFILES.in under CC0-1.0. Can you include those two licenses in the license field as well, please? ! The license text (LICENSE.md) is included in %license There is also LICENSES/ directory that has the other two missing license texts and these should be included in %license as well. + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm SHA512 (gmult-12.0.tar.bz2) = 617b51defaf61c7967c9ccd6898209330733709df4290717e6c158719d04c61a38fa6832197c937f8aef1da23dc2f820c707291761ef8437ab0e78850253768c SHA512 (Download/gmult-12.0.tar.bz2) = 617b51defaf61c7967c9ccd6898209330733709df4290717e6c158719d04c61a38fa6832197c937f8aef1da23dc2f820c707291761ef8437ab0e78850253768c ! Package builds in mock It builds for f38, but fails for rawhide. n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane + locale handling looks good + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all the directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect the runtime of application n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Development files should be in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files + Proper .desktop file handling + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages + Filenames are valid UTF-8 + Package does not depend on deprecated packages -- 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=2203715 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202203715%23c2 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
