Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910233
Frederik Holden <frederik+fed...@frh.no> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |frederik+fed...@frh.no --- Comment #2 from Frederik Holden <frederik+fed...@frh.no> --- Informal package review ======================= Key: [X] = Manually evaluated [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 39239680 bytes in /usr/share 39239680 geoip-geolite-2012.02-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm As this package is not architecture specific, it should have "BuildArch: noarch". [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Perhaps the package should have a separate license file. The license declaration in the description might be sufficient, however. ===== 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. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: 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 [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [X]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [X]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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). ===== 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. [X]: 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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 39239680 bytes in /usr/share 39239680 geoip-geolite-2012.02-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: geoip-geolite-2012.02-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm geoip-geolite.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) geolocation -> echolocation, collocation, allocation geoip-geolite.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US geolocation -> echolocation, collocation, allocation geoip-geolite.x86_64: E: no-binary geoip-geolite.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint geoip-geolite geoip-geolite.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) geolocation -> echolocation, collocation, allocation geoip-geolite.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US geolocation -> echolocation, collocation, allocation geoip-geolite.x86_64: E: no-binary geoip-geolite.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- geoip-geolite (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- geoip-geolite: geoip-geolite geoip-geolite(x86-64) MD5-sum check ------------- http://geolite.maxmind.com/download/geoip/database/GeoLiteCity.dat.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a145ec8a7d78c23109446d0964b31af09823fd14c7aa63374c0215ee9b6fb617 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a145ec8a7d78c23109446d0964b31af09823fd14c7aa63374c0215ee9b6fb617 http://geolite.maxmind.com/download/geoip/database/GeoLiteCityv6-beta/GeoLiteCityv6.dat.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 57dba591969a82c0ff25e31fd573faf1193be650705c3f9bbfa8f5df48dc0ae2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 57dba591969a82c0ff25e31fd573faf1193be650705c3f9bbfa8f5df48dc0ae2 http://geolite.maxmind.com/download/geoip/database/GeoLiteCountry/GeoIP.dat.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8bce6035e9c56d11dd69244d37aeeeadb632b0c4b9027eb0d93edff9804fcdb5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8bce6035e9c56d11dd69244d37aeeeadb632b0c4b9027eb0d93edff9804fcdb5 http://geolite.maxmind.com/download/geoip/database/GeoIPv6.dat.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7e797d906c36906e7a27136c477b6540579c17ada9b8a604a9bad711369875ae CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7e797d906c36906e7a27136c477b6540579c17ada9b8a604a9bad711369875ae Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 910233 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=eS8fPvV4vg&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review