10:18 a.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728307
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
- Own this dir:
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/fonts/foundation-icons
- Escape the macros in comment
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 291 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/foundation-icons-fonts/review-foundation-
icons-fonts/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/fonts/foundation-icons
[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.
[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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: 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:
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: foundation-icons-fonts-web-3.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm
foundation-icons-fonts-3.0-1.fc31.src.rpm
foundation-icons-fonts-web.noarch: W: no-documentation
foundation-icons-fonts.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{fontname}
foundation-icons-fonts.src:62: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE2}
foundation-icons-fonts.src:63: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
foundation-icons-fonts.src:63: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
foundation-icons-fonts.src:63: W: macro-in-comment %{fontname}
foundation-icons-fonts.src:67: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
foundation-icons-fonts.src:67: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir}
foundation-icons-fonts.src:67: W: macro-in-comment %{fontname}
foundation-icons-fonts.src:70: W: macro-in-comment %{fontname}
foundation-icons-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in
comment on line 13: %{fontname}.metainfo.xml
foundation-icons-fonts.src: E: specfile-error
foundation-icons-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in
comment on line 13: %{fontname}.metainfo.xml
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 10 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