10:24 p.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186964
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> ---
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 30 files have
unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1186964-courier-
unicode/licensecheck.txt
Upstream specified GPLv3 as the license, as does .spec, so everything seems
fine.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
Should be removed unless it'll be build for old EPELs.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
Same comment as before.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[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.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
Same comment as above.
[-]: 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).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in courier-
unicode-devel
%{?_isa} should be added, to make sure that -devel is always installed with the
matching main package.
[ ]: Package functions as described.
Didn't test it, but it looks OK.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Note: Test run failed
[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: courier-unicode-1.1-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm
courier-unicode-devel-1.1-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm
courier-unicode-1.1-2.fc22.src.rpm
courier-unicode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US titlecase ->
title case, title-case, telecast
courier-unicode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grapheme ->
ephemera
courier-unicode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iconv -> icon,
icons, icon v
courier-unicode.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C * Look up uppercase,
lowercase, and titlecase equivalents of a unicode character.
courier-unicode.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C The current release of
the Courier Unicode library is based on the Unicode 6.3.0 standard.
courier-unicode-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libunicode ->
Unicode
courier-unicode-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
libunicode -> Unicode
courier-unicode-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
courier-unicode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US titlecase -> title
case, title-case, telecast
courier-unicode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US grapheme ->
ephemera
courier-unicode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iconv -> icon,
icons, icon v
courier-unicode.src: E: description-line-too-long C * Look up uppercase,
lowercase, and titlecase equivalents of a unicode character.
courier-unicode.src: E: description-line-too-long C The current release of the
Courier Unicode library is based on the Unicode 6.3.0 standard.
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 9 warnings.
OK.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires
--------
courier-unicode (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
courier-unicode-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
courier-unicode
Provides
--------
courier-unicode:
courier-unicode
courier-unicode(x86-64)
libunicode.so.1()(64bit)
courier-unicode-devel:
courier-unicode-devel
courier-unicode-devel(x86-64)
Source checksums
----------------
http://sourceforge.net/projects/courier/files/courier-unicode/1.1/courier...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
a10e61d20f3bf25bebdec495dea54258948f333a29f29a7f155a31f9bfb3f56c
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
a10e61d20f3bf25bebdec495dea54258948f333a29f29a7f155a31f9bfb3f56c
http://sourceforge.net/projects/courier/files/courier-unicode/1.1/courier...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
2c016d1015acc3112cf67032d184bd1f0db75be34c483e571062e55a6ce90501
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
2c016d1015acc3112cf67032d184bd1f0db75be34c483e571062e55a6ce90501
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1186964
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8976108
There are some suggestions and one minor issue listed above. Please take into
consideration and/or fix.
Package is APPROVED.
--
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=kyy9ay5iiF&a=cc_unsubscribe