https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005320
--- Comment #9 from Pádraig Brady <pbr...@redhat.com> ---
looks good to me
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[X]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[X]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[X]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/puppet,
/usr/share/puppet/modules
[X]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[X]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[X]: 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).
[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.
[X]: 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.
[X]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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]: 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]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Perl:
[ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo
$version)) missing?
Python:
[X]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[X]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[X]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[X]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[X]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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.
[-]: %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]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: openstack-puppet-modules-2013.2-3.fc19.noarch.rpm
openstack-puppet-modules-2013.2-3.fc19.src.rpm
openstack-puppet-modules.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 warnings.
Requires
--------
openstack-puppet-modules (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/bash
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/perl
perl(File::Spec)
perl(Getopt::Long)
perl(diagnostics)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
Provides
--------
openstack-puppet-modules:
openstack-puppet-modules
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
--
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
