https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462466
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Heggheim <hegjon(a)gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gcc
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
===== 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]: 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: "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng curl
GPL
(v2)". 46 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/jonny/tmp/1462466-jp2a/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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 6 files.
[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]: 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jp2a-
debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: jp2a-1.0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
jp2a-debuginfo-1.0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
jp2a-1.0.7-1.fc27.src.rpm
jp2a.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) jpg -> jog, jg, pg
jp2a.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
jp2a.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
jp2a.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
jp2a.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/jp2a.1.gz 30: warning:
macro `Tp' not defined
jp2a-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://csl.name/jp2a The read
operation timed out
jp2a.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) jpg -> jog, jg, pg
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: jp2a-debuginfo-1.0.7-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
jp2a.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) jpg -> jog, jg, pg
jp2a.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
jp2a.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
jp2a.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
jp2a.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/jp2a.1.gz 30: warning:
macro `Tp' not defined
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Requires
--------
jp2a-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jp2a (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcurl.so.4()(64bit)
libjpeg.so.62()(64bit)
libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
jp2a-debuginfo:
jp2a-debuginfo
jp2a-debuginfo(x86-64)
jp2a:
jp2a
jp2a(x86-64)
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/cslarsen/jp2a/archive/v1.0.7.tar.gz#/jp2a-1.0.7.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
e509d8bbf9434afde5c342568b21d11831a61d9942ca8cb1633d4295b7bc5059
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
e509d8bbf9434afde5c342568b21d11831a61d9942ca8cb1633d4295b7bc5059
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1462466
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component