Nicolas Chauvet changed bug 3953
What Removed Added
Flags fedora-review? fedora-review+

Comment # 10 on bug 3953 from 
===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
     Note: See rpmlint output
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)

Generic:
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-]: 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
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 276480 bytes in 5 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[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]: 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:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
     Note: Package contains font files
[!]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[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: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 8396800 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: dwarffortress-0.43.05-6.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          dwarffortress-0.43.05-6.fc28.src.rpm
dwarffortress.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) procedurally ->
procedural
dwarffortress.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dwarven -> warden
dwarffortress.x86_64: W: invalid-license Dwarf Fortress
dwarffortress.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/libexec/dwarffortress/Dwarf_Fortress ['$ORIGIN']
dwarffortress.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/libexec/dwarffortress/libgraphics.so
dwarffortress.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
dwarffortress.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
dwarffortress.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
dwarffortress.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dwarffortress
dwarffortress.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) procedurally -> procedural
dwarffortress.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dwarven -> warden
dwarffortress.src: W: invalid-license Dwarf Fortress
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
dwarffortress.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) procedurally ->
procedural
dwarffortress.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dwarven -> warden
dwarffortress.x86_64: W: invalid-license Dwarf Fortress
dwarffortress.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
/usr/libexec/dwarffortress/Dwarf_Fortress ['$ORIGIN']
dwarffortress.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/libexec/dwarffortress/libgraphics.so
dwarffortress.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
dwarffortress.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dwarffortress
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.



Issues:
- Please quiet unzip in %prep
- Since stripping is disabled, you need to manually strip the
/usr/libexec/dwarffortress/libgraphics.so
- use a %version macro for SOURCE2

Nothing really blocking, so this package is APPROVED for nonfree.

You are receiving this mail because: