https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382152

Randy Barlow <ra...@electronsweatshop.com> changed:

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



--- Comment #21 from Randy Barlow <ra...@electronsweatshop.com> ---
Alright, you've got this spec file to the point that I'm willing to mark it as
approved! I've left a few notes in there (search for "randy:" for my comments)
about some ways you can improve it, but those are all at your option and you
can do it after you've got the package in Fedora.

I need to go to dinner right now. When I come back I'll take a look at that
third package review you did. If it checks out, I think we'll be ready to mark
you as sponsored!


Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/orpie
  See:
 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
 


===== 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: "LGPL (v2)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown      
     or generated", "*No copyright* GPL", "*No copyright* LGPL", "GPL (v2       
     or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2)". 51 files have         
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in                        
     /home/rbarlow/reviews/orpie/licensecheck.txt                               
     randy: I think you can use the word "and" between the licenses. Also,      
     you don't need to list "GPLv2" and "GPLv2+".                               
[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.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 348160 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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
     randy: This is OK since you noted that it breaks the build. I
            recommend reporting this upstream.
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in orpie-
     debuginfo
     randy: I think this is OK.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: 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.
     randy: It looks like the %check section is commented.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: orpie-1.5.2-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          orpie-debuginfo-1.5.2-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm
          orpie-1.5.2-3.fc26.src.rpm
orpie.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 GPLv2+ LGPLv2
orpie.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/bin/orpie-curses-keys
orpie.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/bin/orpie
orpie.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/orpie/COPYING
orpie-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 GPLv2+ LGPLv2
orpie.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2 GPLv2+ LGPLv2
orpie.src:76: W: macro-in-%changelog %doc
orpie.src:76: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: orpie-debuginfo-1.5.2-3.fc26.x86_64.rpm
orpie-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 GPLv2+ LGPLv2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
orpie.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 GPLv2+ LGPLv2
orpie.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/bin/orpie
orpie.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-chdir-with-chroot /usr/bin/orpie-curses-keys
orpie.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/orpie/COPYING
orpie-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 GPLv2+ LGPLv2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
orpie (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(orpie)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libgsl.so.19()(64bit)
    libgslcblas.so.0()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libncurses.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libtinfo.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

orpie-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
orpie:
    config(orpie)
    orpie
    orpie(x86-64)

orpie-debuginfo:
    orpie-debuginfo
    orpie-debuginfo(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pelzlpj/orpie/releases/download/release-1.5.2/orpie-1.5.2.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
de557fc7f608c6cb1f44a965d3ae07fc6baf2b02a0d7994b89d6a0e0d87d3d6d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
de557fc7f608c6cb1f44a965d3ae07fc6baf2b02a0d7994b89d6a0e0d87d3d6d


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn orpie-1.5.2-3.fc24.src.rpm
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
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to