2:13 p.m.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1595
--- Comment #4 from Tim Lauridsen <tla(a)rasmil.dk> 2011-02-03 15:13:45 ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
[x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
[!] : MUST - Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)).
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
[x] : MUST - Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] : MUST - Each %files section contains %defattr
[x] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x] : MUST - Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the
beginning of %install.
[x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=...
doesn't work.
[x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint tarsnap-1.0.28-1.fc14.src.rpm
================================================================================
tarsnap.src: W: invalid-license Tarsnap License
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint tarsnap-debuginfo-1.0.28-1.fc14.i686.rpm
================================================================================
tarsnap-debuginfo.i686: W: invalid-license Tarsnap License
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
================================================================================
rpmlint tarsnap-1.0.28-1.fc14.i686.rpm
================================================================================
tarsnap.i686: W: invalid-license Tarsnap License
tarsnap.i686: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/tarsnap.conf.sample
tarsnap.i686: W: manual-page-warning
/usr/share/man/man1/tarsnap-keygen.1.gz 3375: bad character definition
tarsnap.i686: W: manual-page-warning
/usr/share/man/man1/tarsnap-keygen.1.gz 3379: warning: macro `\}' not defined
tarsnap.i686: W: manual-page-warning
/usr/share/man/man1/tarsnap-keymgmt.1.gz 3375: bad character definition
tarsnap.i686: W: manual-page-warning
/usr/share/man/man1/tarsnap-keymgmt.1.gz 3379: warning: macro `\}' not defined
tarsnap.i686: W: manual-page-warning
/usr/share/man/man5/tarsnap.conf.5.gz 3375: bad character definition
tarsnap.i686: W: manual-page-warning
/usr/share/man/man5/tarsnap.conf.5.gz 3379: warning: macro `\}' not defined
tarsnap.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/tarsnap.1.gz
3375: bad character definition
tarsnap.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/tarsnap.1.gz
3379: warning: macro `\}' not defined
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
================================================================================
There might be some issues with man page, not a deal breaker
[x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : 219dfc4222525a4f58ad79fd88aeaf75
MD5SUM upstream package : 219dfc4222525a4f58ad79fd88aeaf75
[x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] : MUST - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names.
[x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros.
[x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly.
[x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format.
[x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x] : MUST - 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.
[-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is
installed.
[!] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
Not an issue for rpm fusion.
[x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x] : MUST - Compiler flags are appropriate.
[x] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] : MUST - No %config files under /usr.
[!] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
It is a sample conf file so it sould be ok
[-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using
desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a valid .desktop file.
[x] : MUST - Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8.
[-] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries.
Ok, it is clerified why
[-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
[x] : MUST - Package contains no static executables.
[-] : MUST - Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x] : MUST - Package does not genrate any conflict.
[x] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules.
[x] : MUST - Package is not relocatable.
[x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[?] : MUST - Package installs properly.
[x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present.
[x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL.
[?] : SHOULD - Package functions as described.
[X] : SHOULD - Latest version is packaged.
[X] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[-] : SHOULD - If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!] : SHOULD - Description and summary sections in the package spec file
contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[X] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[X] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm
-q --requires).
[!] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass.
[-] : SHOULD - Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[?] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[?] : SHOULD - Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[-] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define.
[-] : SHOULD - Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] : SHOULD - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[X] : SHOULD - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[-] : SHOULD - File based requires are sane.
[X] : SHOULD - Man pages included for all executables.
[?] : SHOULD - Uses parallel make.
[-] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
Issues:
1. Fix the buildroot
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) and I will
approve it.
--
Configure bugmail: http://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.