10:43 a.m.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3599
Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Blocks|2 |3
AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |anto.trande(a)gmail.com
|mfusion.org |
--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com> 2015-10-03 12:43:37 CEST
---
- 'vdr-plugin-weatherforecast-0.1.1/tools/curlfuncs.c'
is involved in the compilation and licensed with BSD license.
Please, add BSD to the License tag.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/vdr-weatherforecast
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Pac...
'vdr-weatherforecast' was previously packaged for Fedora; it's now retired
and
moved to RPMFusion.
===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 20 files have
unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/vdr-
weatherforecast/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/vdr
This directory is owned by dvr-devel.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: 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 %license.
[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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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.
[-]: %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]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: vdr-weatherforecast-0.1.1-1.fc24.i686.rpm
vdr-weatherforecast-0.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
vdr-weatherforecast.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US io -> oi, Io,
ii
vdr-weatherforecast.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US io -> oi, Io,
ii
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: vdr-weatherforecast-debuginfo-0.1.1-1.fc24.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
vdr-weatherforecast.i686: W: private-shared-object-provides
/usr/lib/vdr/libvdr-weatherforecast.so.2.2.0 libvdr-weatherforecast.so.2.2.0
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires
--------
vdr-weatherforecast (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config(vdr-weatherforecast)
libc.so.6
libcurl.so.4
libgcc_s.so.1
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
libjansson.so.4
libm.so.6
libskindesignerapi.so.0
libstdc++.so.6
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
vdr(abi)(x86-32)
Provides
--------
vdr-weatherforecast:
config(vdr-weatherforecast)
libvdr-weatherforecast.so.2.2.0
vdr-weatherforecast
vdr-weatherforecast(x86-32)
Source checksums
----------------
http://projects.vdr-developer.org/git/vdr-plugin-weatherforecast.git/snap...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
50046266fbd64b99dbcd14f12e7d67b2dd5662b4f978f1604c8fffc6c8c616d3
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
50046266fbd64b99dbcd14f12e7d67b2dd5662b4f978f1604c8fffc6c8c616d3
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386-rpmfusion_free -rn
vdr-weatherforecast-0.1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
--
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.