https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186889
--- Comment #17 from Philip Prindeville <phil...@redfish-solutions.com> ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #16)
> Please remove the extension from the man pages in %files:
> %{_mandir}/man1/geoipupdate.1.*
> etc. This makes a potential change of compression easier.
Done
> 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]: 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.
> [-]: 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:
> "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or
> later)",
> "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 5
> files
> have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> /var/tmp/1186889-geoipupdate/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [-]: 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.
> [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [-]: 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.
> [-]: 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.
> [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB) or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
> [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]: No %config files under /usr.
> [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).
> [x]: Package functions as described.
> It seems to.
>
> [x]: Latest version is packaged.
> [x]: 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.
> [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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
> [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: geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
> geoipupdate-cron-2.1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
> geoipupdate-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
> geoipupdate-cron.noarch: W: no-documentation
> geoipupdate-cron.noarch: E: executable-marked-as-config-file
> /etc/cron.weekly/geoipupdate
> geoipupdate.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
> http://github.com/maxmind/geoipupdate/releases/download/v2.1.0/geoipupdate-2.
> 1.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
>
>
>
>
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> ----------------------------
> Cannot parse rpmlint output:
>
>
> Requires
> --------
> geoipupdate-cron (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> /bin/sh
> config(geoipupdate-cron)
> crontabs
> geoipupdate(x86-64)
>
> geoipupdate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> config(geoipupdate)
> libc.so.6()(64bit)
> libcurl.so.4()(64bit)
> libz.so.1()(64bit)
> rtld(GNU_HASH)
>
>
>
> Provides
> --------
> geoipupdate-cron:
> config(geoipupdate-cron)
> geoipupdate-cron
>
> geoipupdate:
> GeoIP-update
> config(geoipupdate)
> geoipupdate
> geoipupdate(x86-64)
>
>
>
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> http://github.com/maxmind/geoipupdate/releases/download/v2.1.0/geoipupdate-2.
> 1.0.tar.gz :
> CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
> 7388c46f6c483ae609e5f5333a2585bc9713d56bb522da5c11b09d41c87aa5fb
> CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> 7388c46f6c483ae609e5f5333a2585bc9713d56bb522da5c11b09d41c87aa5fb
>
>
> Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
> Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1186889
> Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
>
>
> Package is APPROVED, with the understanding that it is for rawhide (F22)
> only.
What do we need to do to get this into F21 and F20 and EPEL?
--
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
