https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917993
David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |dcantrell(a)redhat.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com> ---
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "NTP
License
(legal disclaimer)", "NTP License (legal disclaimer) [generated
file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) [generated file]",
"GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF
Unlimited License [generated file]", "Expat License [generated
file]",
"GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "[generated file]".
8
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/dcantrell/reviews/xstdcmap/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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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 20480 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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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 debuginfo package(s).
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: xstdcmap-1.0.3-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
xstdcmap-debuginfo-1.0.3-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
xstdcmap-debugsource-1.0.3-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
xstdcmap-1.0.3-1.fc35.src.rpm
xstdcmap.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) colormap -> color map,
color-map, colorway
xstdcmap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colormap -> color map,
color-map, colorway
xstdcmap.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) colormap -> color map,
color-map, colorway
xstdcmap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colormap -> color map,
color-map, colorway
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: xstdcmap-debuginfo-1.0.3-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
xstdcmap.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) colormap -> color map,
color-map, colorway
xstdcmap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colormap -> color map,
color-map, colorway
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://www.x.org/pub/individual/app/xstdcmap-1.0.3.tar.bz2 :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
f648e2b0cf16aa29856de998e2c7204be39dc1f8daeda9464d32288e0b580fc1
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
f648e2b0cf16aa29856de998e2c7204be39dc1f8daeda9464d32288e0b580fc1
Requires
--------
xstdcmap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libXmu.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
xstdcmap-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
xstdcmap-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
xstdcmap:
xstdcmap
xstdcmap(x86-64)
xstdcmap-debuginfo:
debuginfo(build-id)
xstdcmap-debuginfo
xstdcmap-debuginfo(x86-64)
xstdcmap-debugsource:
xstdcmap-debugsource
xstdcmap-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn xstdcmap-1.0.3-1.fc32.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Perl, Python, Haskell, PHP, R,
Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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