6:24 p.m.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152
Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |hobbes1069(a)gmail.com
Blocks|2 |3
--- Comment #40 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> 2014-02-05 19:24:24 CET ---
The only question I could really come up with is if %define is needed for if
%global would work for at the top of the spec file.
Most of the license stuff is moot since you've put it in the Public Domain.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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.
[-]: 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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
Package is in the Public Domain.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/appdata,
/etc/yum.repos.d
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[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.
[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).
[?]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[?]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Note: %define requiring justification: %define reponame %(b=%{name}; echo
${b%%-repo})
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: dropbox-repo-0-3.fc21.noarch.rpm
dropbox-repo-config-0-3.fc21.noarch.rpm
dropbox-repo-0-3.fc21.src.rpm
dropbox-repo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linux -> Linux
dropbox-repo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig,
con-fig, configure
dropbox-repo.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary
/usr/share/applications/dropbox-repo.desktop /usr/bin/system-config-repo
dropbox-repo-config.noarch: W: no-documentation
dropbox-repo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linux -> Linux
dropbox-repo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig,
con-fig, configure
dropbox-repo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps,
repose
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint dropbox-repo-config dropbox-repo
dropbox-repo-config.noarch: W: no-documentation
dropbox-repo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linux -> Linux
dropbox-repo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig,
con-fig, configure
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
dropbox-repo-config (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config(dropbox-repo-config)
dropbox-repo
dropbox-repo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/etc/yum.repos.d/dropbox.repo
system-config-repo
Provides
--------
dropbox-repo-config:
config(dropbox-repo-config)
dropbox-repo-config
dropbox-repo:
application()
application(dropbox-repo.desktop)
dropbox-repo
repo-gui
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --rpm-spec -n
rpmbuild/dropbox-repo/SRPMS/dropbox-repo-0-3.fc19.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, 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.
You are the assignee for the bug.