[Bug 885038] Review Request: pentobi - Program that plays the board game Blokus
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Dec 24 18:37:41 UTC 2012
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885038
Antonio Trande <trpost at katamail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |trpost at katamail.com
--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande <trpost at katamail.com> ---
Hi Christophe.
I'm not an official packager. Following is an 'unofficial package review' that
is not valid and could contain some (my) errors.
Package Review
==============
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
[!]: 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.
Note: Cannot find license.html in rpm(s)
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
See below.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
You can use: %{name} is a computer program to play the board game Blokus
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 %doc.
Note: Cannot find license.html in rpm(s)
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/sagitter/885038-pentobi/licensecheck.txt
The license should be GPLv3+ (GPLv3 or later)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses
[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
You can use %{name} in place of 'pentobi' in spec file. For example:
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/%{name}.png instead of
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/pentobi.png
and so on.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[-]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
BuildRequires and Requires entries should be listed one-by-one.
BuildRequires: boost-devel
BuildRequires: qt-devel
BuildRequires: cmake
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 files.
[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.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[-]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: pentobi-debuginfo-5.0-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm
pentobi-5.0-2.fc16.src.rpm
pentobi-5.0-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint pentobi-debuginfo pentobi
pentobi-debuginfo.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
pentobi-debuginfo-5.0-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
pentobi-5.0-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
boost
libQtCore.so.4()(64bit)
libQtGui.so.4()(64bit)
libboost_filesystem-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit)
libboost_program_options-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit)
libboost_system-mt.so.1.47.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
qt
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
pentobi-debuginfo-5.0-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
pentobi-debuginfo = 5.0-2.fc16
pentobi-debuginfo(x86-64) = 5.0-2.fc16
pentobi-5.0-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm:
mimehandler(application/x-blokus-sgf)
pentobi = 5.0-2.fc16
pentobi(x86-64) = 5.0-2.fc16
MD5-sum check
-------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pentobi/pentobi-5.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
0eaa142ca79ec2d24f86066d5a45e55e81b13875a689f8956b2fed4c78c55c33
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
0eaa142ca79ec2d24f86066d5a45e55e81b13875a689f8956b2fed4c78c55c33
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16
Buildroot used: fedora-16-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 885038
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ciKTK38hXy&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the package-review
mailing list