12:31 p.m.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2720
leigh scott <leigh123linux(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |4
--- Comment #5 from leigh scott <leigh123linux(a)gmail.com> 2013-07-13 14:31:35 CEST
---
APPROVED.
Please fix these issues when you import.
[!]: 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.
Please add COPYING to %doc
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)",
"GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated".
54 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/leigh/Desktop/2720-nvidia-settings-legacy/licensecheck.txt
Please add MIT
License: GPLv2+
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
===== 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]: %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.
[?]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
Requires: nvidia-settings-desktop
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: 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.
Please add COPYING to %doc
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)",
"GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated".
54 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/leigh/Desktop/2720-nvidia-settings-legacy/licensecheck.txt
Please add MIT
License: GPLv2+
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: 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.
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
The debuginfo package is empty, I suspect it's my system at fault
[?]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[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.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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: No rpmlint messages.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make.
Why don't we use it?
[-]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[-]: 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).
[-]: Package functions as described.
Not tested
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
I haven't tested as I don't have a legacy card
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nvidia-settings-legacy-1.0-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires
--------
nvidia-settings-legacy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
/usr/sbin/alternatives
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libXext.so.6()(64bit)
libXxf86vm.so.1()(64bit)
libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit)
libfreetype.so.6()(64bit)
libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
nvidia-settings-desktop
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
nvidia-settings-legacy:
nvidia-settings-legacy
nvidia-settings-legacy(x86-64)
nvidia-settings-legacy-173xx
nvidia-settings-legacy-96xx
nvidia-settings-legacy-nversion
Source checksums
----------------
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~aplattner/nvidia-settings/snapshot/nvidia-se...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
f31f112d1602bd4d0b8e7bea9f50ca5f8efa6bb31167df86edb833a2ca6802b3
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
f31f112d1602bd4d0b8e7bea9f50ca5f8efa6bb31167df86edb833a2ca6802b3
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --other-bz https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org
-b 2720
--
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.
You are the assignee for the bug.