https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865970 Michael Scherer <misc(a)zarb.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |misc(a)zarb.org Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |misc(a)zarb.org Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer <misc(a)zarb.org&gt; --- Hi, it seems there is code from elfutils bundled with it, and while I can see the reason, I think this should be agreed by the FPC, could you see with them ? ( and add the breakdown of the license ). Otherwise, everything is good. Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries. There is a copy of some code of elfutils ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/865970-dwlocstat/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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) [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (pmachata-dwlocstat-4557c3e.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dwlocstat-0.1-0.1.20121012git4557c3e.fc17.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint dwlocstat 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- dwlocstat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdw.so.1()(64bit) libdw.so.1(ELFUTILS_0.122)(64bit) libdw.so.1(ELFUTILS_0.149)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- dwlocstat: dwlocstat dwlocstat(x86-64) MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/pmachata/dwlocstat/tarball/4557c3e/pmachata-dwlocstat-... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5a91e26c0a1c909d822239760e4297fde7ffbb2fa3f9dda12ed2587d300f71f0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5a91e26c0a1c909d822239760e4297fde7ffbb2fa3f9dda12ed2587d300f71f0 Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (Unknown) last change: Unknown Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 865970 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865970 Michael Scherer <misc(a)zarb.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer <misc(a)zarb.org&gt; --- Ok so good for me ( sorry to not have approved earlier ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865970 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.