https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667174 Dennis Gilmore <dennis(a)ausil.us&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |dennis(a)ausil.us Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Dennis Gilmore <dennis(a)ausil.us&gt; --- /etc/issue.d is unowned and should be provided by fedora-release. for /usr/lib/udev and /usr/lib/udev/rules.d a missing requires on systemd-udev needs to be added otherwise the rest looks fine. 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: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dennis/1667174-console-login-helper- messages/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/issue.d [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/issue.d, /usr/lib/udev, /usr/lib/udev/rules.d [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]: 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 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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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: [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in console- login-helper-messages-motdgen , console-login-helper-messages-issuegen , console-login-helper-messages-profile [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [ ]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [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: [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: console-login-helper-messages-0.12-1.fc30.noarch.rpm console-login-helper-messages-motdgen-0.12-1.fc30.noarch.rpm console-login-helper-messages-issuegen-0.12-1.fc30.noarch.rpm console-login-helper-messages-profile-0.12-1.fc30.noarch.rpm console-login-helper-messages-0.12-1.fc30.src.rpm console-login-helper-messages.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) motd -> mots, mot, mod console-login-helper-messages.noarch: E: summary-too-long C Combines motd, issue, profile features to show system information to the user before/on login console-login-helper-messages.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US motd -> mots, mot, mod console-login-helper-messages.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Combines motd, issue, profile features to show system information to the user before/on login. console-login-helper-messages-motdgen.noarch: W: no-documentation console-login-helper-messages-issuegen.noarch: W: no-documentation console-login-helper-messages-issuegen.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /etc/issue.d/console-login-helper-messages.issue /run/issue.d/console-login-helper-messages.issue console-login-helper-messages-profile.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib console-login-helper-messages-profile.noarch: W: no-documentation console-login-helper-messages.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) motd -> mots, mot, mod console-login-helper-messages.src: E: summary-too-long C Combines motd, issue, profile features to show system information to the user before/on login console-login-helper-messages.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US motd -> mots, mot, mod console-login-helper-messages.src: E: description-line-too-long C Combines motd, issue, profile features to show system information to the user before/on login. console-login-helper-messages.src:74: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/issue.d console-login-helper-messages.src:75: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/motd.d console-login-helper-messages.src:95: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/issuegen console-login-helper-messages.src:100: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/motdgen console-login-helper-messages.src:133: W: macro-in-comment %check console-login-helper-messages.src:138: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} console-login-helper-messages.src:148: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/issuegen console-login-helper-messages.src:149: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/issue.d console-login-helper-messages.src:157: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/motdgen console-login-helper-messages.src:158: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}/motd.d 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- console-login-helper-messages-profile (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bash console-login-helper-messages setup systemd console-login-helper-messages-motdgen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash bash console-login-helper-messages pam selinux-policy setup systemd console-login-helper-messages (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh bash systemd console-login-helper-messages-issuegen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash bash console-login-helper-messages setup systemd util-linux Provides -------- console-login-helper-messages-profile: console-login-helper-messages-profile console-login-helper-messages-motdgen: console-login-helper-messages-motdgen console-login-helper-messages: console-login-helper-messages console-login-helper-messages-issuegen: console-login-helper-messages-issuegen Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rfairley/console-login-helper-messages/releases/downlo... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 81e31926ccc59b6ef38c2de6fb90eb18b7cf354f579314792b69269a63d56baa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9b8e5b65fef3a6606640e5496d9fc22a093fa3a3eb874c49ec18341abe91b91a However, diff -r shows no differences Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1667174 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667174 --- Comment #3 from Robert Fairley <rfairley(a)redhat.com&gt; --- PR to own `/etc/issue.d` in Rawhide: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-release/pull-request/64 -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667174 Dennis Gilmore <dennis(a)ausil.us&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Dennis Gilmore <dennis(a)ausil.us&gt; --- I have verified the issues are fixed. Package is approved -- 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