https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530084
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 #4 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
- Fix your %changelog entries:
numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.0-2..git
['0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742.fc30', '0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742']
Package approved.
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: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License (v3.0)", "Unknown
or
generated". 2760 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/numix-icon-theme-square
/review-numix-icon-theme-square/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]: 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 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]: 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:
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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: numix-icon-theme-square-0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742.fc30.noarch.rpm
numix-icon-theme-square-0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742.fc30.src.rpm
numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.0-2..git
['0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742.fc30', '0.1.0-2.20180829.git307e742']
numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/icons/Numix-Square-Light/16/panel ../../Numix-Light/16/panel
numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/icons/Numix-Square-Light/22/panel ../../Numix-Light/22/panel
numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/icons/Numix-Square-Light/24/panel ../../Numix-Light/24/panel
numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/icons/Numix-Square/16/panel ../../Numix/16/panel
numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/icons/Numix-Square/22/panel ../../Numix/22/panel
numix-icon-theme-square.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/icons/Numix-Square/24/panel ../../Numix/24/panel
numix-icon-theme-square.src: W: no-%build-section
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 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