https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1852583
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- /etc/ → %{_sysconfdir} everywhere
%files -n epel6-repos
%doc README.md
%license GPL
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/yum.repos.d/
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/yum.repos.d/epel6*.repo
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/pki/rpm-gpg/
%{_sysconfdir}/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-EPEL-6
%files -n epel7-repos
%doc README.md
%license GPL
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/yum.repos.d/
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/yum.repos.d/epel7*.repo
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/pki/rpm-gpg/
%{_sysconfdir}/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-EPEL-7
%files -n epel8-repos
%doc README.md
%license GPL
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/yum.repos.d/
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/yum.repos.d/epel8*.repo
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/pki/rpm-gpg/
%{_sysconfdir}/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-EPEL-8
- Malformed dist tag:
Release:9%{?dist}
- Use a GPL license file with an updated FSF address:
E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/epel8-repos/GPL
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-release
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
= 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License", "Unknown or generated". 1
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/epel-release/review-epel-
release/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/pki/rpm-gpg(fedora-gpg-
keys), /etc/yum.repos.d(fedora-repos)
[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.
[!]: 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]: 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 3 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 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]: 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
