https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1554021 Stefan Koch <stefan.koch10(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=1553496 Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from Stefan Koch <stefan.koch10(a)gmail.com&gt; --- A first review was done by Robert-André Mauchin with Bug 1553496 (complete usbauth suite review request). I have changed the spec files now. There are new build available on COPR. See Bugs: 1554020 libusbauth-configparser review request 1554021 usbauth review request 1554022 usbauth-notifier review request (these bugs will replace bug 1553496) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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=1554021 Stefan Koch <stefan.koch10(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=1554020 -- 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=1554021 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- - Please space out your changelog entry, they are difficult to read - I would rather have you not mix Suse stuff with Fedora stuff. - Install the license file with %license, not %doc %doc README %license COPYING - Your %changelog entry must contain the release-version: * Sat Mar 10 2018 stefan.koch10(a)gmail.com - 1.0-1 - Add a BR for gcc - Split the description to stay below 80 characters per line and fix the typo: usbauth.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US descibes -> describes, describe, Delibes usbauth.src: E: description-line-too-long C It is a firewall against BadUSB attacks. A config file descibes in which way devices would be accepted. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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: "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/usbauth/review-usbauth/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.opensuse.usbauth.conf [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 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]: 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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [-]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in usbauth- debuginfo , usbauth-debugsource [?]: 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]: 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]: 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. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: usbauth-1.0-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm usbauth-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm usbauth-debugsource-1.0-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm usbauth-1.0-1.fc30.src.rpm usbauth.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US descibes -> describes, describe, Delibes usbauth.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C It is a firewall against BadUSB attacks. A config file descibes in which way devices would be accepted. usbauth.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog tefan.koch10(a)gmail.com ['1.0-1.fc30', '1.0-1'] usbauth.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.opensuse.usbauth.conf usbauth.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US descibes -> describes, describe, Delibes usbauth.src: E: description-line-too-long C It is a firewall against BadUSB attacks. A config file descibes in which way devices would be accepted. usbauth.src:65: W: setup-not-quiet usbauth.src: W: invalid-url Source0: usbauth-1.0.tar.bz2 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 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