https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447741
Paulo Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Paulo Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com> ---
Package is approved!
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.
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", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
generated". 75 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/pcpa/1447741-sedutil/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[x]: 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 20480 bytes in 4 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]: 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]: 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:
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sedutil-
debuginfo
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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: sedutil-1.12-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm
sedutil-debuginfo-1.12-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm
sedutil-1.12-3.fc27.src.rpm
sedutil.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cli -> cl, clii, clip
sedutil.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided msed
sedutil.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
sedutil.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
sedutil.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
sedutil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US msed -> med, mused, mdse
sedutil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cli -> cl, clii, clip
sedutil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linuxpba -> Linux
sedutil.src:35: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(gnulib)
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: sedutil-debuginfo-1.12-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
sedutil.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cli -> cl, clii, clip
sedutil.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided msed
sedutil.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
sedutil.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
sedutil.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Requires
--------
sedutil (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libncurses.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libtinfo.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
sedutil-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
sedutil:
bundled(gnulib)
sedutil
sedutil(x86-64)
sedutil-debuginfo:
sedutil-debuginfo
sedutil-debuginfo(x86-64)
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Drive-Trust-Alliance/sedutil/archive/1.12/sedutil-1.12.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
5509d4279cfb316f33730c5cb06f8162ae212c7f4d31d206642d67cc8be245c1
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
5509d4279cfb316f33730c5cb06f8162ae212c7f4d31d206642d67cc8be245c1
--
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
