https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325477
--- Comment #4 from Mike Molina <mmolina.unphys...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
> - Group: is not used in Fedora
>
> - This is not needed in %install
>
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>
> - This is not needed either:
>
> %clean
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>
>
> - Only use this one time, no need for the first one:
>
> %find_lang %{name} --with-man
>
> - Separate your %changelog entries by an empty line
>
> - The license files must be installed with %license, not %doc:
>
> %files -f %{name}.lang
> %license COPYING LICENCIA
> %doc README.md LEAME.md NEWS ChangeLog AUTHORS DEPENDENCIES
>
> - Please be more specific in %files:
>
> %{_bindir}/kalendas
> %{_mandir}/man1/kalendas.1.*
> %{_infodir}/kalendas.info.gz
>
> - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build
>
> - it would be nice to also split the BR for readability:
>
> BuildRequires: gcc
> BuildRequires: texinfo >= 4.13a
> BuildRequires: gettext >= 0.17
> BuildRequires: perl-libintl >= 1.20
> BuildRequires: pkgconfig(bash-completion)
>
>
>
>
> Package Review
> ==============
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
> Issues:
> =======
> - 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.
> Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
> See:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
>
>
> ===== 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: "FSF All Permissive License", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
> generated", "GNU Free Documentation License", "GPL (v7)", "GNU Free
> Documentation License (v1.3 or later)", "Expat License", "GPL (v2 or
> later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "FSF Unlimited License (with
> Retention)". 64 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
> licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/kalendas/review-
> kalendas/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [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]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
> package has .info files.
> Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in kalendas
> [x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
> [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 112640 bytes in 8 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: No rpmlint messages.
> [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]: 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:
> [!]: 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).
> [?]: Package functions as described.
> [x]: Latest version is packaged.
> [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> [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]: 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 all installed packages.
> Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
>
>
> Rpmlint
> -------
> Checking: kalendas-1.3.1-2.fc30.noarch.rpm
> kalendas-1.3.1-2.fc30.src.rpm
> kalendas.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found es
> kalendas.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found pt_BR
> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Thank you for your recommendations! I have made the respective adjustments in
the SPEC file with a new revision of the package.
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mikemolina/kalendas-rpm/gh-pages/spec/kalendas.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/mikemolina/kalendas-rpm/raw/gh-pages/fedora/rawhide/SRPMS/kalendas-1.3.1-3.fc30.src.rpm
Scratch build satisfactory for rawhide (fc31) through koji system.
Koji rawhide build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33139345
--
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
