https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519323
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebo...@gmail.com> ---
- Add a comment explaining what the patch is for
- You never apply the patch in %prep, did you forget that part?
%patch0 -p1
- Escape the macros in your last changelog entry by doubling the %:
* Thu Nov 30 2017 Germano Massullo <germano.massu...@gmail.com> - 3.12.10-1
- forced %%{cmake} . -DBREAKPAD=FALSE because breakpad does not compile with
recent compilers. Source: Raul Metsma (upstream) on IRC chat, which showed me
also
https://github.com/open-eid/qesteidutil/commit/efdfe4c5521f68f206569e71e292a664bb9f46aa
- adjusted doc file names
- removed OpenSSL 1.1 patch because no longer necessary
- replaced make %%{?_smp_mflags} with %%make_build (see package review
#1519323)
- replaced make install DESTDIR=%%{buildroot} with %%make_install (see package
review #1519323)
- removed line %%clean and rm -rf %%{buildroot} (see package review #1519323)
- license file attached to %%license macro, instead of %%doc macro (see package
review #1519323)
- Replaced BuildRequires: openssl-devel with BuildRequires: pkgconfig(openssl)
(see package review #1519323)
- Replaced BuildRequires: qt5-qttools with BuildRequires:
pkgconfig(Qt5Designer) (see package review #1519323)
- Replaced BuildRequires: libpcsclite-devel >= 1.7 with BuildRequires:
pkgconfig(libpcsclite) >= 1.7 (see package review #1519323)
- Convert this file to UTF-8:
qesteidutil.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/qesteidutil/AUTHORS
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/qesteidutil
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
===== 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated",
"GPL (v3) LGPL (v3)", "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD
like)", "BSD (4 clause)", "curl", "*No copyright* Public domain",
"Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Ms-RL", "Unicode
strict BSD (3 clause)", "Unicode strict", "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL
(v2.1 or later)", "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v3 or later)", "*No
copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 359 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/qesteidutil/review-
qesteidutil/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in qesteidutil
[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 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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 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:
[-]: 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
qesteidutil-debuginfo , qesteidutil-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: 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]: 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.
[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: qesteidutil-3.12.10-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
qesteidutil-debuginfo-3.12.10-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
qesteidutil-debugsource-3.12.10-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
qesteidutil-3.12.10-1.fc28.src.rpm
qesteidutil.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eesti -> testis
qesteidutil.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ee -> i, we, re
qesteidutil.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
qesteidutil.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/qesteidutil/AUTHORS
qesteidutil-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
qesteidutil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eesti -> testis
qesteidutil.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ee -> i, we, re
qesteidutil.src:87: W: macro-in-%changelog %{cmake}
qesteidutil.src:90: W: macro-in-%changelog %make_build
qesteidutil.src:91: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot}
qesteidutil.src:91: W: macro-in-%changelog %make_install
qesteidutil.src:92: W: macro-in-%changelog %clean
qesteidutil.src:92: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot}
qesteidutil.src:93: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
qesteidutil.src:93: W: macro-in-%changelog %doc
qesteidutil.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: sandbox-compilation.patch
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings.
--
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
