[Bug 3375] Review request: vdr-skindesigner - A VDR skinning engine that displays XML based Skins
RPM Fusion Bugzilla
noreply at rpmfusion.org
Sat Oct 4 23:18:57 CEST 2014
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3375
--- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande at gmail.com> 2014-10-04 23:18:57 CEST ---
- Try to preserve timestamps by using INSTALL="install -p"
in the 'make install' line.
- In section '%files data', you just need to list main directory
in order to own the same and all its sub-directories and files.
%{vdr_resdir}/plugins/skindesigner/
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 92 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/review-vdr-
skindesigner/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 /usr/share/vdr/plugins/skindesigner/metrixhd,
/usr/share/vdr/plugins/skindesigner/metrixhd/themes
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/vdr/plugins/skindesigner/metrixhd/themes, /usr/share/vdr,
/usr/share/vdr/plugins, /usr/share/vdr/plugins/skindesigner/metrixhd
[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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
Note: Test run failed
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[!]: 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 %doc.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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 do not use a name that already exist
[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.
===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in vdr-
skindesigner-data
[ ]: 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.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Note: Test run failed
[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: vdr-skindesigner-0.0.1-2.20141004gite14982a.fc22.x86_64.rpm
vdr-skindesigner-data-0.0.1-2.20141004gite14982a.fc22.noarch.rpm
vdr-skindesigner-0.0.1-2.20141004gite14982a.fc22.src.rpm
vdr-skindesigner.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US powerfull ->
powerful, powerfully, power full
vdr-skindesigner.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US answerd ->
answers, answer, answered
vdr-skindesigner-data.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xml -> XML, ml,
x ml
vdr-skindesigner-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml ->
XML, ml, x ml
vdr-skindesigner-data.noarch: W: no-documentation
vdr-skindesigner.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US powerfull ->
powerful, powerfully, power full
vdr-skindesigner.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US answerd ->
answers, answer, answered
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint vdr-skindesigner vdr-skindesigner-data
vdr-skindesigner.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US powerfull ->
powerful, powerfully, power full
vdr-skindesigner.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US answerd ->
answers, answer, answered
vdr-skindesigner-data.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xml -> XML, ml,
x ml
vdr-skindesigner-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml ->
XML, ml, x ml
vdr-skindesigner-data.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
vdr-skindesigner (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config(vdr-skindesigner)
libGraphicsMagick++-Q16.so.3()(64bit)
libGraphicsMagick-Q16.so.3()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit)
libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0)(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
vdr(abi)(x86-64)
vdr-epgsearch
vdr-softhddevice
vdr-skindesigner-data (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
vdr-skindesigner
Provides
--------
vdr-skindesigner:
config(vdr-skindesigner)
libvdr-skindesigner.so.2.0.6()(64bit)
vdr-skindesigner
vdr-skindesigner(x86-64)
vdr-skindesigner-data:
vdr-skindesigner-data
Source checksums
----------------
http://projects.vdr-developer.org/git/vdr-plugin-skindesigner.git/snapshot/vdr-plugin-skindesigner-e14982a4be688e39bb727c91c7545b2c152d5f71.tar.bz2
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
b5f8ef22f7910f2edcde16988b51f74ddd7cf46e6a22dc949d272e9aace8ee47
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
b5f8ef22f7910f2edcde16988b51f74ddd7cf46e6a22dc949d272e9aace8ee47
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64-rpmfusion_free -u
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3375
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the rpmfusion-developers
mailing list