2:56 p.m.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3553
MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks|3 |4
--- Comment #10 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de> 2015-03-01 15:56:08 CET ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- 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.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
===== 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)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL
(unversioned/unknown
version) GPL (v3)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
generated". 13 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS/cairo-dock-freeworld/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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]: 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.
[-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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
[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 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]: 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]: 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:
[x]: 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).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in cairo-dock-
freeworld-libs
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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:
[ ]: 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).
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: cairo-dock-freeworld-3.4.0-9.fc21.x86_64.rpm
cairo-dock-freeworld-libs-3.4.0-9.fc21.x86_64.rpm
cairo-dock-freeworld-3.4.0-9.fc21.src.rpm
cairo-dock-freeworld.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) themable -> them
able, them-able, fathomable
cairo-dock-freeworld.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage
cairo-dock-freeworld.x86_64: E: no-binary
cairo-dock-freeworld.x86_64: W: no-documentation
cairo-dock-freeworld-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/licenses/cairo-dock-freeworld-libs/copyright
cairo-dock-freeworld-libs.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/ld.so.conf.d/cairo-dock-freeworld-x86_64.conf
cairo-dock-freeworld.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) themable -> them
able, them-able, fathomable
cairo-dock-freeworld.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackage
-> meta package, meta-package, prepackage
cairo-dock-freeworld.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog:
Thu Dec 21 2011 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)fedoraproject.org> - 2.4.0.2-2
cairo-dock-freeworld.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog:
Sat Nov 6 2009 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> - 2.1.1.2-1
cairo-dock-freeworld.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog:
Wed May 27 2008 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> -
1.5.6-1.date20080528
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires
--------
cairo-dock-freeworld (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
cairo-dock(x86-64)
cairo-dock-freeworld-libs(x86-64)
cairo-dock-freeworld-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libGL.so.1()(64bit)
libGLU.so.1()(64bit)
libX11.so.6()(64bit)
libXcomposite.so.1()(64bit)
libXinerama.so.1()(64bit)
libXrandr.so.2()(64bit)
libXrender.so.1()(64bit)
libXtst.so.6()(64bit)
libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libcairo-gobject.so.2()(64bit)
libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
libcrypt.so.1()(64bit)
libcurl.so.4()(64bit)
libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit)
libdbus-glib-1.so.2()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libgdk-3.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)
libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
librsvg-2.so.2()(64bit)
libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit)
libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
cairo-dock-freeworld:
cairo-dock-freeworld
cairo-dock-freeworld(x86-64)
cairo-dock-freeworld-libs:
cairo-dock-freeworld-libs
cairo-dock-freeworld-libs(x86-64)
libgldi.so.3()(64bit)
Source checksums
----------------
http://launchpad.net/cairo-dock-core/3.4/3.4.0/+download/cairo-dock-3.4.0...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
7843390bddce79497343e8bd3b8fbe528b7c6a65968d31595fd62ee12e284270
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
7843390bddce79497343e8bd3b8fbe528b7c6a65968d31595fd62ee12e284270
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn
../SRPMS/cairo-dock-freeworld-3.4.0-9.fc21.src.rpm -m
fedora-21-x86_64-rpmfusion_free
Buildroot used: fedora-21-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
one issue, desktop-file-utils isn't need for building the package.
package APPROVED !
--
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.