[Bug 962236] Review Request: f1lt - Unofficial Formula 1 live timing application

Thu May 16 05:08:56 UTC 2013

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962236

David Tardon <dtardon at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from David Tardon <dtardon at redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

Issues:
=======
- update-desktop-database is invoked when required
  Note: desktop file(s) in f1lt
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
- Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
  Note: Found : Packager: David Tardon <dtardon at redhat.com>
  See: (this test has no URL)

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: 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)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/dachjo/work/rpm/962236-f1lt/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked when required
     Note: icons in f1lt
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[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 if there is
     such a file.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[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).

===== 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.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
     Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 6266880 bytes in /usr/share 6266880
     f1lt-2.0.2-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
[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
-------
Checking: f1lt-2.0.2-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
f1lt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary f1lt
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint f1lt
f1lt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary f1lt
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires
--------
f1lt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    gtk2
    libQtCore.so.4()(64bit)
    libQtGui.so.4()(64bit)
    libQtNetwork.so.4()(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)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

Provides
--------
f1lt:
    f1lt
    f1lt(x86-64)

MD5-sum check
-------------
http://f1lt.googlecode.com/files/f1lt-2.0.2-src.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
aa84b97de08f051fbf0acd52904753c298331d9815b3f39f324945aa629024c5
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
aa84b97de08f051fbf0acd52904753c298331d9815b3f39f324945aa629024c5

Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 962236

-- 
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=9CLMa1Orvy&a=cc_unsubscribe