https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1597391
Robert-André Mauchin <zebo...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |zebo...@gmail.com
Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebo...@gmail.com> ---
- Not needed
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
rm -rf %{buildroot}
- The archive seems corrupted. I don't manage to open it. Same with the SRPM.
I think the correct Source0 should be:
https://pagure.io/mediawiki-backtick-code-extension/raw/master/f/mediawiki-backtick-code-0.0.2.tar.gz
- You should own this directory:
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/mediawiki/extensions/BacktickCode
%dir %{_datadir}/mediawiki/extensions/BacktickCode
- The changelog entry must contain your name, email and the Version-Release
info:
* Fri Jun 29 2018 Zach Villers <zachvatw...@gmail.com> - 0.0.2-1
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mediawiki-
backtick-code/review-mediawiki-backtick-code/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/mediawiki/extensions/BacktickCode
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/mediawiki/extensions/BacktickCode
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: 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:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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.
[-]: %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]: 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 all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: mediawiki-backtick-code-0.0.2-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
mediawiki-backtick-code-0.0.2-1.fc29.src.rpm
mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backticks ->
back ticks, back-ticks, backtracks
mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
wikitext -> wiki text, wiki-text, extradite
mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inlined
-> unlined, inline, inclined
mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre ->
per, ore, pee
mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
Backticks -> Back ticks, Back-ticks, Backtracks
mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog ebel
['0.0.2-1.fc29', '0.0.2-1']
mediawiki-backtick-code.noarch: W: no-documentation
mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backticks -> back
ticks, back-ticks, backtracks
mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wikitext
-> wiki text, wiki-text, extradite
mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inlined ->
unlined, inline, inclined
mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre ->
per, ore, pee
mediawiki-backtick-code.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backticks
-> Back ticks, Back-ticks, Backtracks
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZGPBCBTSSMNXIIX6KEXRLUG2DMFULWKI/
