https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117403
Matthias Runge <mru...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge <mru...@redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"BSD (3 clause)", "MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)",
"Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: 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.
[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.
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
That is actually true, because of wine
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 7 files.
[x]: 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 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.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
Upstream does not include license texts, but simply contains a line:
The code is licensed under the MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1.
For more information take a look at the license block in linux/basicplugin.c.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %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 (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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5621760 bytes in /usr/share
[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: pipelight-0.2.7.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
pipelight-0.2.7.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
pipelight.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/pipelight/wine /usr/bin/wine
pipelight.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/pipelight/wine64
/usr/bin/wine64
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint pipelight
pipelight.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/pipelight/wine /usr/bin/wine
pipelight.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/pipelight/wine64
/usr/bin/wine64
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
pipelight (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/bash
/usr/bin/gpg
/usr/bin/wget
/usr/bin/zenity
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
mozilla-filesystem(x86-64)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
wine(x86-64)
Provides
--------
pipelight:
libpipelight.so()(64bit)
pipelight
pipelight(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
pipelight: /usr/lib64/pipelight/libpipelight.so
Source checksums
----------------
https://bitbucket.org/mmueller2012/pipelight/get/v0.2.7.1.tar.gz#/pipelight-0.2.7.1.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
48d0a245d53e045bc9e45dee0e124b3ec4dd9ebd30b3fbac2f787cbe0a46b9b2
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
48d0a245d53e045bc9e45dee0e124b3ec4dd9ebd30b3fbac2f787cbe0a46b9b2
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
8177f97513213526df2cf6184d8ff986c675afb514d4e68a404010521b880643
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
dc626520dcd53a22f727af3ee42c770e56c97a64fe3adb063799d8ab032fe551
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
dc626520dcd53a22f727af3ee42c770e56c97a64fe3adb063799d8ab032fe551
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/1.1/index.txt#/mpl-1.1.txt :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
bb4680b13c3190429464a8308a07d7d891e6454349fb7be856e02405b25b1195
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
bb4680b13c3190429464a8308a07d7d891e6454349fb7be856e02405b25b1195
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1117403
Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Excellent work!
Package approved
--
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
