https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2137159
Guido Aulisi guido.aulisi@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Guido Aulisi guido.aulisi@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "BSD 3-Clause License BSD 2-Clause License GNU General Public License, Version 3 GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "*No copyright* Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2", "Public domain GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License", "MIT License", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "NTP License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2", "zlib License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "Apple MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU Lesser General Public License GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "Boost Software License 1.0", "BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)", "BSD 4-Clause License BSD 2-clause NetBSD License", "GNU Lesser General Public License GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* Public domain", "NTP License MIT License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 1877 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/guido/2137159-ardour7/licensecheck.txt [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]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [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]: 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 %license. [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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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 or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 31969280 bytes in /usr/share ardour7-7.0.0-0.1.fc38.x86_64.rpm:31969280 See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Gui... [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).