https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2517242
--- Comment #18 from Marco P. Cabrera <[email protected]> --- Package Review ============== Issues: - Summary is slightly too long (over 79 characters). Consider shortening it to: "Interactive Bash script for creating professional Hi-Fi Audio DVDs" - Small typo check: change ".iso" to uppercase ".ISO" in %description to clear rpmlint spelling warning. Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPL-3.0-or-later). [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [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. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS. [-]: 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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [x]: License file included in %license. [x]: The License field is a valid SPDX expression. [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 %{buildroot}. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package does not use %makeinstall. [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. [x]: Spec file name matches the spec package %{name}. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Documentation size is small (no need for -doc subpackage). [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Package builds cleanly in mock. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version (1.0.1) is packaged. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Spec uses %global instead of %define. Rpmlint ------- Checking: hifi-dvd-pro-1.0.1-1.fc46.noarch.rpm hifi-dvd-pro-1.0.1-1.fc46.src.rpm hifi-dvd-pro.noarch: E: summary-too-long hifi-dvd-pro.src: E: summary-too-long hifi-dvd-pro.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hifi-dvd-pro hifi-dvd-pro.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/marcopcabrera/hifi-dvd-pro/archive/refs/tags/v1.0.1.tar.gz#/hifi-dvd-pro-1.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 19ac1c84db855a13fb83a13ff1fea31ede00382bb47254cbe3b86823f30b9cf5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 19ac1c84db855a13fb83a13ff1fea31ede00382bb47254cbe3b86823f30b9cf5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2517242 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202517242%23c18 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
