https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551153



--- Comment #2 from Matěj Týč <ma...@redhat.com> ---
Pasting complete output of fedora-review.

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

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


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: coreutils gcc make
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- Possibly undetected conflict with tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin
- 


===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "LGPL (v2)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "BSD (2 clause) GPL (v2 or
     later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2)", "LGPL
     (v2.1)", "GPL (v2)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)". 189 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/matyc/tests/fedora-
     review/1551153-tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin/licensecheck.txt
Files are licensed under GPL2, unless stated otherwise.
All licences are accepted by Fedora.

[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.
[?]: Package does not generate any conflict.
The package is believed to create conflict, but the review tool haven't
detected it.

[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Advised to reduce BuildRequires to just "binutils"

[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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.
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin-0-0.1.20180302git1edfa966.fc29.x86_64.rpm
          tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin-0-0.1.20180302git1edfa966.fc29.src.rpm
tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin/tscdeadline_latency.flat
tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/share/tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin/tscdeadline_latency.flat
tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.x86_64: W: executable-stack
/usr/share/tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin/tscdeadline_latency.flat
tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.x86_64: W: no-documentation
tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.src:31: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/KVM-unit-tests <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin/tscdeadline_latency.flat
tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.x86_64: W: ldd-failed
/usr/share/tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin/tscdeadline_latency.flat
tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/share/tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin/tscdeadline_latency.flat
tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.x86_64: W: executable-stack
/usr/share/tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin/tscdeadline_latency.flat
tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.



Requires
--------
tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin:
    tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin
    tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin(x86-64)



Source checksums
----------------
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm-unit-tests.git/snapshot/kvm-unit-tests-1edfa966328dfc824e9b0351087bbfaf699dce04.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
bdb506a48139c2301c5fbf5e83e9faeec319c55b7ed3209bbde248a6b86d1efe
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
bdb506a48139c2301c5fbf5e83e9faeec319c55b7ed3209bbde248a6b86d1efe


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1551153 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
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