[Bug 1733870] New: Review Request: xrootd-ceph - XRootD plug-in for interfacing with the Ceph storage platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733870 Bug ID: 1733870 Summary: Review Request: xrootd-ceph - XRootD plug-in for interfacing with the Ceph storage platform Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mattias.ell...@physics.uu.se QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/xrootd-ceph.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/xrootd-ceph-4.10.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: The xrootd-ceph is an OSS layer plug-in for the XRootD server for interfacing with the Ceph storage platform. Fedora Account System Username: ellert Note: This is a package split. The xrootd-ceph package is currently provided by a subpackage of the xrootd package. This will no longer be the case after updating to version 4.10.0, where the xrootd-ceph sources have been split off to a separate source. To keep the xrootd-ceph in Fedora the new source package is needed. -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1733851] New: Review Request: rust-sval_derive - Custom derive for sval
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733851 Bug ID: 1733851 Summary: Review Request: rust-sval_derive - Custom derive for sval Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-sval_derive.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-sval_derive-0.4.3-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Custom derive for sval. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1733850] New: Review Request: rust-sval - No-std, object-safe serialization framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733850 Bug ID: 1733850 Summary: Review Request: rust-sval - No-std, object-safe serialization framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-sval.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-sval-0.4.3-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: No-std, object-safe serialization framework. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1733846] New: Review Request: xrdcl-http - HTTP client plug-in for XRootD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733846 Bug ID: 1733846 Summary: Review Request: xrdcl-http - HTTP client plug-in for XRootD Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mattias.ell...@physics.uu.se QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/xrdcl-http.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/xrdcl-http-4.10.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: xrdcl-http is an XRootD client plugin which allows XRootD to interact with HTTP repositories. Fedora Account System Username: ellert -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1728381] mdevctl - A mediated device persistence and management utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728381 Cole Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Cole Robinson --- FWIW this packages is quite similar to driverctl which is already in Fedora. driverctl review bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372670 Trimmed output from fedora-review: - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ The source URL looks acceptable per the docs, but looks like the archive in the SRPM is not the same content as github generates. Please fix that - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets The guidelines don't list anything about systemd parameterized units (ones with @ in the name), which is what mdevctl is using. driverctl doesn't use the macros, but openvpn _does_ use them for its parameterized units, like this: %post %systemd_post openvpn-client@\*.service %systemd_post openvpn-server@\*.service %preun %systemd_preun openvpn-client@\*.service %systemd_preun openvpn-server@\*.service %postun %systemd_postun_with_restart openvpn-client@\*.service %systemd_postun_with_restart openvpn-server@\*.service %systemd_postun_with_restart openvpn@\*.service I don't really understand enough about how all this works to say whether this package should be using those macros. aw I'll leave it up to you to decide. Can always be fixed after import if necessary - Changelog in prescribed format. Changelog lines should be individually prefixed with '-' and contain a version string at the end. Your changelog there looks more like it should be a NEWS.md file which you can ship as %doc. Using that is better for upstream too IMO because other distros won't want a .spec file to be the canonical release notes. For Fedora spec the changelog should be the package version history so all of those entries should be trimmed except the most recent one basically. mdevctl.noarch: W: empty-%post mdevctl.noarch: W: empty-%postun Looks like on all current Fedora versions, udev_rules_update is an empty macro, because file triggers are used to make udev update itself. https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/32a00a9c097cf04ec2b0fcbf9b73eba188318424 So you can remove those sections entirely. If you need those for another distro like rhel, please wrap them in a conditional to make it clear they don't apply to Fedora -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1268696] Review Request: rubygem-guard-rspec - Guard gem for RSpec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268696 Jaroslav Prokop changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2019-07-28 21:56:26 --- Comment #15 from Jaroslav Prokop --- I am closing this because of inactivity from the maintainer. -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1733175] Review Request: golang-github-google-renameio - Atomically create or replace a file or symbolic link
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733175 --- Comment #3 from Björn Persson --- There are three things I want clarified: Why are CONTRIBUTING.md and README.md duplicated? They are both in the documentation directory and together with the Go files. They're marked as documentation in both places, which means that the library is supposed to work without them, so why do they need to be in the directory with the Go code? RPMlint complains about a hidden file, .goipath. As I'm not familiar with Go I need to ask: Do things break if that file isn't hidden? The general Packaging Guidelines say that "header only libraries" must provide "*-static". Is this not done for Go? I can imagine that it might be considered unnecessary if it's well known that all Go libraries are just source code, but the Golang guidelines don't say anything about this. As a side note, assigning the URL field from a macro and writing the URL in a comment seems a little silly to me. It's very good to have the URL of the upstream site in the spec file, but since the URL is there anyway, why not keep it in the URL field? But this is prescribed by the policy that the FPC has approved, so it's not an issue for the review. -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1733798] New: Review Request: wine-dxvk: Vulkan-based D3D11 and D3D10 implementation for Linux / Wine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733798 Bug ID: 1733798 Summary: Review Request: wine-dxvk: Vulkan-based D3D11 and D3D10 implementation for Linux / Wine Product: Fedora Version: 30 Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fzatl...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/frantisekz/wine-dxvk/fedora-30-x86_64/00981967-wine-dxvk/wine-dxvk.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/frantisekz/wine-dxvk/fedora-30-x86_64/00981967-wine-dxvk/wine-dxvk-1.3.1-1.fc30.src.rpm More info: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wine/pull-request/3 -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1494914] Review Request: rspamd - Rapid spam filtering system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494914 --- Comment #9 from Christian Glombek --- v1.9.4 is on COPR now. This still can't go into Fedora properly, as some dependencies have yet to be unbundled. not a priority for me right now, but PRs are always welcome at https://github.com/LorbusChris/rspamd-rpm -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1494914] Review Request: rspamd - Rapid spam filtering system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494914 Christian Glombek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1733757] Review Request: rust-getrandom - Small cross-platform library for retrieving random data from system source
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733757 --- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko --- New Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-getrandom.spec New SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-getrandom-0.1.6-1.fc31.src.rpm -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1733757] New: Review Request: rust-getrandom - Small cross-platform library for retrieving random data from system source
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733757 Bug ID: 1733757 Summary: Review Request: rust-getrandom - Small cross-platform library for retrieving random data from system source Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-getrandom.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-getrandom-0.1.6-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Small cross-platform library for retrieving random data from system source. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1732920] Review Request: rust-fail - Failpoints for rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1732920 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-07-28 11:26:06 -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1728378] Review Request: rust-fedora-coreos-pinger - Telemetry service for Fedora CoreOS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728378 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-07-28 11:26:04 -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1723110] Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-crypto - Some Go cryptography routines that are not included in the Go standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723110 Bug 1723110 depends on bug 1723104, which changed state. Bug 1723104 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-ogletest - A Go unit testing framework like Google Test for C++ and JS Test https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723104 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1723104] Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-ogletest - A Go unit testing framework like Google Test for C++ and JS Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723104 Brian (bex) Exelbierd changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-07-28 09:08:12 --- Comment #7 from Brian (bex) Exelbierd --- This has been packaged for rawhide. -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1733707] Review Request: multi-git-status - Show uncommitted, untracked and unpushed changes for multiple Git repos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733707 --- Comment #4 from Brian (bex) Exelbierd --- Updated spec and srpm to reflect a partial move to versioning by the upstream (at my request). With the next release they will use forge releases. Spec URL: https://bex.fedorapeople.org/multi-git-status/multi-git-status.spec SRPM URL: https://bex.fedorapeople.org/multi-git-status/multi-git-status-1.0-1.20190728git2e6049d.fc30.src.rpm Description: Show uncommitted, untracked and unpushed changes for multiple Git repos. multi-git-status shows: * Uncommitted changes if there are unstaged or uncommitted changes on the checked out branch. * Untracked files if there are untracked files which are not ignored. * Needs push (BRANCH) if the branch is tracking a (remote) branch which is behind. * Needs upstream (BRANCH) if a branch does not have a local or remote upstream branch configured. Changes in the branch may otherwise never be pushed or merged. * Needs pull (BRANCH) if the branch is tracking a (remote) branch which is ahead. This requires that the local git repo already knows about the remote changes (i.e. you've done a fetch), or that you specify the -f option. Multi-git-status does NOT contact the remote by default. * X stashes if there are stashes. Fedora Account System Username: bex -- 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 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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1733707] Review Request: multi-git-status - Show uncommitted, untracked and unpushed changes for multiple Git repos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733707
Benjamin Kircher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||benjamin.kirc...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Benjamin Kircher ---
Installed and played around. Looks good to me.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bkircher/pkgs/multi-
git-status/multi-git-status/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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).
[ ]: 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]: 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 71680 bytes in 2 files.
[ ]: 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 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]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run
