https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847867
Randall "Randy" Berry <randyn3...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |randyn3...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |randyn3...@gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Randall "Randy" Berry <randyn3...@gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ====
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
==== Generic ====
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see below).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines. Julius (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Julius)
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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 %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"zlib/libpng", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)" For detailed output of licensecheck
see file: /home/rberry/Fedora-Review/847867-julius/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream SHA256SUM check error
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[ ]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[ ]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[ ]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source1 (japanese-models.tar.gz) False positive.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[ ]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream SHA256SUM check error: (see below)
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: julius-debuginfo-4.2.2-1.fc16.i686.rpm
julius-japanese-models-4.2.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
julius-4.2.2-1.fc16.src.rpm
julius-4.2.2-1.fc16.i686.rpm
julius-devel-4.2.2-1.fc16.i686.rpm
julius-japanese-models.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US triphone
-> trip hone, trip-hone, iPhone
julius-japanese-models.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
monophone -> mono phone, mono-phone, monophonic
julius-japanese-models.noarch: W: no-documentation
julius.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modularized -> popularized
julius.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US triphones -> trip hones,
trip-hones, entryphones
julius.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modularized -> popularized
julius.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US triphones -> trip hones,
trip-hones, entryphones
julius.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libjulius.so.0.0.0
exit@GLIBC_2.0
julius.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libsent.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.0
julius.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary yomi2voca.pl
julius-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libjulius -> Julius
julius-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libsent -> lib sent,
lib-sent, Ibsen
julius-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libjulius -> Julius
julius-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libsent -> lib sent,
lib-sent, Ibsen
julius-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
julius-devel.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libsent-config
julius-devel.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libjulius-config
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings.
All rpmlint warnings are excusable.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint julius-devel julius-japanese-models
julius-devel.i686: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
julius-devel.i686: W: invalid-license Julius
julius-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
julius-devel.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libsent-config
julius-devel.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libjulius-config
julius-japanese-models.noarch: W: invalid-license Julius
julius-japanese-models.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Julius is a valid license. (Recently added)
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Julius)
Requires
--------
julius-debuginfo-4.2.2-1.fc16.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
julius-japanese-models-4.2.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
julius = 4.2.2-1.fc16
julius-4.2.2-1.fc16.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
/usr/bin/perl
libasound.so.2
libc.so.6
libdl.so.2
libjulius.so.0
libm.so.6
libpthread.so.0
libpulse-simple.so.0
libpulse.so.0
libreadline.so.6
libsent.so.0
libsndfile.so.1
libz.so.1
perl(IO::Select)
perl(IO::Socket)
perl(Jcode)
perl(strict)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
julius-devel-4.2.2-1.fc16.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
julius = 4.2.2-1.fc16
libjulius.so.0
libsent.so.0
Provides
--------
julius-debuginfo-4.2.2-1.fc16.i686.rpm:
julius-debuginfo = 4.2.2-1.fc16
julius-debuginfo(x86-32) = 4.2.2-1.fc16
julius-japanese-models-4.2.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm:
julius-japanese-models = 4.2.2-1.fc16
julius-4.2.2-1.fc16.i686.rpm:
julius = 4.2.2-1.fc16
julius(x86-32) = 4.2.2-1.fc16
libjulius.so.0
libsent.so.0
julius-devel-4.2.2-1.fc16.i686.rpm:
julius-devel = 4.2.2-1.fc16
julius-devel(x86-32) = 4.2.2-1.fc16
MD5-sum check
-------------
http://sourceforge.jp/projects/julius/downloads/56549/julius-4.2.2.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
f53caf18be4fb8266b988071855565dccb78c09f00f1d36a8e258b7be6b3cef5
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
9bbf81999ea6ee3ddf42aece5be333e2500bad9612c972adafce0bb5d1d4aa63
http://julius.sourceforge.jp/archive/japanese-models.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
9ec42810092d1d55cfdc9566c2cd71cc0b65b6871734639c2c33f58f6e86df44
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
9ec42810092d1d55cfdc9566c2cd71cc0b65b6871734639c2c33f58f6e86df44
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 847867
External plugins:
Note: This is only my second attempt at using fedora-review. Please correct me
on any errors on my part, false positives, etc.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
