https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1701204
Vitaly Zaitsev <vit...@easycoding.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |vit...@easycoding.org
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Vitaly Zaitsev <vit...@easycoding.org> ---
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]: 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: "*No copyright* Expat License", "*No copyright* Public domain",
"Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "Expat License Public
domain". 945 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/vitaly/1701204-howl/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.
[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 30720 bytes in 2 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 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 howl-
debuginfo , howl-debugsource
[x]: 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]: 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:
[ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 6789120 bytes in /usr/share
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: howl-0.6-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
howl-debuginfo-0.6-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
howl-debugsource-0.6-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
howl-0.6-4.fc31.src.rpm
howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) centric -> eccentric, centrist,
concentric
howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist,
minimalism, animistic
howl.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name
or service not known>
howl.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/howl/bundles/c/misc/example.c
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/howl/bundles/coffeescript/misc/example.coffee 644 /usr/bin/coffee
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/howl/bundles/moonscript/misc/example.moon 644 /usr/bin/moon
howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/howl/bundles/python/misc/examples.py /usr/bin/env python
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/howl/bundles/python/misc/examples.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/howl/bundles/ruby/misc/example.rb /usr/bin/env ruby
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/howl/bundles/ruby/misc/example.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby
howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs [allow(unused)]
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs 644 [allow(unused)]
howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl
howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl-spec
howl-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error
[Errno -2] Name or service not known>
howl-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error
[Errno -2] Name or service not known>
howl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) centric -> eccentric, centrist,
concentric
howl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist,
minimalism, animistic
howl.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or
service not known>
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 11 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: howl-debuginfo-0.6-4.fc31.x86_64.rpm
howl-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error
[Errno -2] Name or service not known>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) centric -> eccentric, centrist,
concentric
howl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist,
minimalism, animistic
howl.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://howl.io <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name
or service not known>
howl.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/share/howl/bundles/c/misc/example.c
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/howl/bundles/coffeescript/misc/example.coffee 644 /usr/bin/coffee
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/howl/bundles/moonscript/misc/example.moon 644 /usr/bin/moon
howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/howl/bundles/python/misc/examples.py /usr/bin/env python
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/howl/bundles/python/misc/examples.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/howl/bundles/ruby/misc/example.rb /usr/bin/env ruby
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/howl/bundles/ruby/misc/example.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby
howl.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs [allow(unused)]
howl.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/howl/bundles/rust/misc/example.rs 644 [allow(unused)]
howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl
howl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary howl-spec
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 8 warnings.
Requires
--------
howl-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
howl-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
howl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/ruby
/usr/bin/sh
hicolor-icon-theme
libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit)
libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit)
libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
luajit(x86-64)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
howl-debugsource:
howl-debugsource
howl-debugsource(x86-64)
howl-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
howl-debuginfo
howl-debuginfo(x86-64)
howl:
application()
application(howl.desktop)
howl
howl(x86-64)
metainfo()
metainfo(howl.appdata.xml)
mimehandler(text/plain)
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/howl-editor/howl/releases/download/0.6/howl-0.6.tgz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
834b06e423d360c97197e7abec99b623fdc5ed3a0c39b88d6467e499074585e1
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
834b06e423d360c97197e7abec99b623fdc5ed3a0c39b88d6467e499074585e1
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1701204
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
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
