https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1482202
--- Comment #2 from Jan Synacek <jsyna...@redhat.com> --- This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/jsynacek/review/1482202-dbus-broker/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 102 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jsynacek/review/1482202-dbus- broker/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/selinux/targeted, /usr/share/selinux [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dbus- broker-debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define c_dvar_version 1, %define c_list_version 3, %define c_rbtree_version 3, %define c_sundry_commit 3b5f04b5af54dea68d832546833d6d460d03aefc [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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: dbus-broker-2-2.fc26.x86_64.rpm dbus-broker-debuginfo-2-2.fc26.x86_64.rpm dbus-broker-2-2.fc26.src.rpm dbus-broker.x86_64: W: no-documentation dbus-broker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dbus-broker dbus-broker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dbus-broker-launch dbus-broker-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources dbus-broker.src: W: file-size-mismatch dbus-broker-2.tar.gz = 136357, https://github.com/bus1/dbus-broker/archive/v2/dbus-broker-2.tar.gz = 138241 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: dbus-broker-debuginfo-2-2.fc26.x86_64.rpm dbus-broker-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory dbus-broker-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources dbus-broker.x86_64: W: no-documentation dbus-broker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dbus-broker dbus-broker.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dbus-broker-launch 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- dbus-broker-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dbus-broker (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh dbus libc.so.6()(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libselinux.so.1()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0()(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_209)(64bit) libsystemd.so.0(LIBSYSTEMD_221)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) systemd Provides -------- dbus-broker-debuginfo: dbus-broker-debuginfo dbus-broker-debuginfo(x86-64) dbus-broker: bundled(c-dvar) bundled(c-list) bundled(c-rbtree) dbus-broker dbus-broker(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/c-util/c-list/archive/v3/c-list-3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 09b72f38599d1b78aa7b5a6fe93dfaf2d8e9128d8cf26748815bd5b539cb652d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 09b72f38599d1b78aa7b5a6fe93dfaf2d8e9128d8cf26748815bd5b539cb652d https://github.com/c-util/c-rbtree/archive/v3/c-rbtree-3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2a046005903c0a1d0e41069e4ce349e9a04acc977a564d90fcdba52ce9c9b67d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2a046005903c0a1d0e41069e4ce349e9a04acc977a564d90fcdba52ce9c9b67d https://github.com/bus1/dbus-broker/archive/v2/dbus-broker-2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2000021ea50b11a3574d7ec7283b4bfdc1c424298895b38e1c73c9c10d0c5989 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e5ea2192d3aa705ed8b48124fa822b693e101b2950dcfdf2229fe5e5b7c3c078 https://github.com/c-util/c-dvar/archive/v1/c-dvar-1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6c549d96ea4d13f45712b4f0cfeff6ee17f2add064b24c352081f5bafbc6b053 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6c549d96ea4d13f45712b4f0cfeff6ee17f2add064b24c352081f5bafbc6b053 https://github.com/c-util/c-sundry/archive/3b5f04b5af54dea68d832546833d6d460d03aefc/c-sundry-3b5f04b5af54dea68d832546833d6d460d03aefc.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b34f2c51e533b6caa97f55de9bfdfe966738d9f4a35659da2ddd1458c62a79f6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b34f2c51e533b6caa97f55de9bfdfe966738d9f4a35659da2ddd1458c62a79f6 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1482202 Buildroot used: fedora-26-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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
