https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324861
James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== Issues =====
* Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
- OKAY : Common php vendor so shares vendor path since no parent BR owning
* Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
- EPEL5 boilerplate to be removed
* Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
- EPEL5 boilerplate to be removed
* Buildroot is not present
- EPEL5 boilerplate to be removed
* Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
- EPEL5 boilerplate to be removed
* RPMlint: strange-permission makesrc.sh 775
- Used to pack with tests, not included in rpm
* SourceX is a working URL.
- Source is a repack of commit to include tests excluded from release.
- Verified included source matches the commit from repo
===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 28 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/james/workspace/fedora-scm/1324861-php-league-
plates/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/php/League(php-
league-flysystem)
[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.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[!]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
PHP:
[x]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files.
Note: phpCompatInfo version 5.0.0 DB built Mar 07 2016 07:28:32 CET
static analyze results in /home/james/workspace/fedora-scm/1324861
-php-league-plates/phpci.log
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: php-league-plates-3.1.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
php-league-plates-3.1.1-1.fc25.src.rpm
php-league-plates.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Autoloader ->
Auto loader, Auto-loader, Freeloader
php-league-plates.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autoload ->
auto load, auto-load, tautology
php-league-plates.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Autoloader ->
Auto loader, Auto-loader, Freeloader
php-league-plates.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usr -> use, us,
user
php-league-plates.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autoload -> auto
load, auto-load, tautology
php-league-plates.src: W: strange-permission makesrc.sh 775
php-league-plates.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
php-league-plates-3.1.1-2d8569e.tgz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
php-league-plates.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Autoloader ->
Auto loader, Auto-loader, Freeloader
php-league-plates.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autoload ->
auto load, auto-load, tautology
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires
--------
php-league-plates (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
php-composer(symfony/class-loader)
php-pcre
php-spl
Provides
--------
php-league-plates:
php-composer(league/plates)
php-league-plates
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1324861 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
===== Result =====
APPROVED (with the EPEL5 boilerplate removed after import)
As a side note some of the boilerplate (eg the clean and buildroot) are no
longer required for EPEL5 as
a result of the new epel-rpm-macros updates but guidelines have not been
altered.
--
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
