https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039315
Rahul Sundaram <methe...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |methe...@gmail.com
--- Comment #35 from Rahul Sundaram <methe...@gmail.com> ---
This is not a full fledged review but a quick look:
Checking: nuvolaplayer-2.3.3-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
nuvolaplayer-2.3.3-1.fc20.src.rpm
nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Nuvola -> Nolan
nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nuvolaplayer
nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nuvolaplayer-client
nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary
/usr/share/applications/nuvolaplayer.desktop nuvolaplayer
nuvolaplayer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Nuvola -> Nolan
nuvolaplayer.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue May
04 2014 Martin Gansser <marti...@fedoraproject.org> - 2.3.3-1
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
--
Why is BuildRequires: bzr needed?
I would also suggest using %{buildroot} for consistency
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
===== 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown
or generated". 101 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/rahul/1039315-nuvolaplayer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[-]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in nuvolaplayer
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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.
[-]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[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]: 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
===== 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).
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nuvolaplayer-2.3.3-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
nuvolaplayer-2.3.3-1.fc20.src.rpm
nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Nuvola -> Nolan
nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nuvolaplayer
nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nuvolaplayer-client
nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary
/usr/share/applications/nuvolaplayer.desktop nuvolaplayer
nuvolaplayer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Nuvola -> Nolan
nuvolaplayer.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue May
04 2014 Martin Gansser <marti...@fedoraproject.org> - 2.3.3-1
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint nuvolaplayer
nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Nuvola -> Nolan
nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nuvolaplayer
nuvolaplayer.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nuvolaplayer-client
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
nuvolaplayer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
control-center-filesystem
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgee.so.2()(64bit)
libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgstreamer-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libjavascriptcoregtk-3.0.so.0()(64bit)
libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libnotify.so.4()(64bit)
libnuvolaplayerprivate.so()(64bit)
libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libsoup-2.4.so.1()(64bit)
libwebkitgtk-3.0.so.0()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
tsocks
Provides
--------
nuvolaplayer:
libnuvolaplayerprivate.so()(64bit)
nuvolaplayer
nuvolaplayer(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
nuvolaplayer: /usr/lib64/libnuvolaplayerprivate.so
nuvolaplayer: /usr/lib64/nuvolaplayer/libnuvolaplayerprivate.so
Source checksums
----------------
https://launchpad.net/nuvola-player/2.3.x/2.3.3/+download/nuvolaplayer-2.3.3.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
1a65eaeb24227ff84b2da5f05e44efcfad4c2a3a4504fbc359c688113054f8ad
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
1a65eaeb24227ff84b2da5f05e44efcfad4c2a3a4504fbc359c688113054f8ad
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1039315
Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
