https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428
--- Comment #6 from Luboš Uhliarik <luhli...@redhat.com> --- Good job Tomas, I can confirm that all marked problems have been fixed, so I'm approving this package. (In reply to Tomas Hozza from comment #5) > (In reply to Luboš Uhliarik from comment #4) > > Package Review > > ============== > > > > Legend: > > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > > > C/C++: > > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > > [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > > [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) > > [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. > > [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > > > > 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. > > [!]: 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)", "Unknown or generated", "Public +domain ISC", "BSD > > (3 > > clause) ISC", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause) ISC", "ISC", "BSD (2 > > clause)". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > > licensecheck > > in /tmp/1199428-bind99/licensecheck.txt > > - multiple licences in source files, but only license in SPEC file > > - some of source files don't have any license > > All software from ISC is released under ISC license. > https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/ > > Based on > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field > "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary > rpm." > > Using licensecheck on files installed by binary RPMs I see there ISC, Public > domain and BSD. > > So I changed the license to ISC and BSD and Public Domain. I also added > explanation as a comment before License: field. > > > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > > Note: No known owner of /usr/include/bind99, /usr/lib64/bind99 > > Thanks for catching this. I added those to the %files section > > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/bind99, > > /usr/lib64/bind99 > > - please solve permissions for directories /usr/include/bind99 and > > /usr/lib64/bind99 > > same as the above. > > > [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. > > [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. > > [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > > names). > > - option --localstatedir in SPEC file in %configure part uses hardcoded > > directory > > name (/var), use macro %{_localstatedir} instead > > fixed > > > [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. > > [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > > (~1MB) or number of files. > > Note: Documentation size is 440320 bytes in 2 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 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]: %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). > > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > > bind99-libs > > , bind99-license , bind99-devel > > [ ]: Package functions as described. > > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > > [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > > [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > > justified. > > [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. > > [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > > [ ]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. > > [x]: SourceX is a working URL. > > [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > > > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > > > Generic: > > [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros > > Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. > > See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools > > BIND is used on different platforms and also on old versions of different > Operating Systems. Since this is "just" should point, I'll leave this up to > the upstream to decide which m4 macros they use. > > > [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: bind99-libs-9.9.7-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm > > bind99-license-9.9.7-2.fc21.noarch.rpm > > bind99-devel-9.9.7-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm > > bind99-9.9.7-2.fc21.src.rpm > > bind99-license.noarch: W: no-documentation > > bind99-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > > bind99-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > bind99.src: E: summary-too-long C The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) > > DNS (Domain Name System) server libraries > > > > - please shorten the summary > > fixed. > > > bind99.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/ <urlopen > > error timed out> > > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. > > Updated SPEC and SRPM: > https://thozza.fedorapeople.org/bind99/bind99.spec > https://thozza.fedorapeople.org/bind99/bind99-9.9.7-3.fc21.src.rpm -- 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
