https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911047
Marcelo Barbosa <mr.marcelo.barb...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Marcelo Barbosa <mr.marcelo.barb...@gmail.com> ---
Jamie,
I managed to run the fedora-review with the-m flag fedora-rawhide-x86_64,
see result:
- Outputs rpmlint are false positives
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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[-]: 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.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[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]: 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 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]: 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:
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[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: nodejs-q-0.9.6-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
nodejs-q.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jQuery -> j Query,
query, equerry
nodejs-q.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-q.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating ->
contemplating, template, tempting
nodejs-q.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint nodejs-q
nodejs-q.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jQuery -> j Query,
query, equerry
nodejs-q.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-q.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating ->
contemplating, template, tempting
nodejs-q.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
nodejs-q (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
nodejs(engine)
Provides
--------
nodejs-q:
nodejs-q
npm(q)
Source checksums
----------------
http://registry.npmjs.org/q/-/q-0.9.6.tgz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
28bbea749dc79674e6928f97bd8e4514a6680e5e7385614975c751e8170b22f4
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
28bbea749dc79674e6928f97bd8e4514a6680e5e7385614975c751e8170b22f4
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 911047 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
----------------
PACKAGE APPROVED
----------------
Follow the process from:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner
If you have any questions , feel free to contact me through my email or in the
irc channel #fedora-devel, my nick is firemanxbr
--
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=4BHP14XWsC&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
