https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853493
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
A few issues :
- there seems to be small part of glibc embedded into lib/
for example lib/regex.c. that's not good and IMHO, should be discussed
with upstream ( and I count that as blocker, for the non bundled library
policy )
- code is using gnulib, lack a bundled(gnulib). This is a exception
to the policy, but I am not sure everything in lib is part of gnulib.
- code seems to be under gplv3 or later, so the license tag is
wrong, and doc is under FDL, so should be reflected in license tag as
well.
- there is still stuff that are not needed unless on EPEL5, and i think it
is usually cleaner to remove them.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: defattr() present in %files -f %{name}.lang section. This is OK
if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[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 %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL, GPL (v3 or later) For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/853493-gcal/licensecheck.txt
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 8 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
