6:27 p.m.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4393
Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks|3 |4
--- Comment #43 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com> ---
Package approved.
Rawhide scratch build: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146830
Epel7 scratch build: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146956
Review:
===== 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 %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[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.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
$ mock --no-clean -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64-rpmfusion_free --shell 'rpmlint
zoneminder'
INFO: mock.py version 1.4.2 starting (python version = 3.6.1)...
zoneminder.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libjpeg-turbo
zoneminder.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/zm/zm.conf 640
zoneminder.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/zoneminder/www/api/app/Plugin/Crud/.semver
zoneminder.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/zoneminder/www/api/lib/Cake/Config/cacert.pem
../../../../../../../../etc/pki/tls/certs/ca-bundle.crt
zoneminder.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/zoneminder/www/cambozola.jar ../../java/cambozola.jar
zoneminder.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-var-run /var/run/zoneminder
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zma
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmaudit.pl
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmc
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmcamtool.pl
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmcontrol.pl
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmdc.pl
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmf
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmfilter.pl
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmonvif-probe.pl
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmpkg.pl
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmsystemctl.pl
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmtelemetry.pl
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmtrack.pl
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmtrigger.pl
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmu
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmupdate.pl
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmvideo.pl
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmwatch.pl
zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmx10.pl
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 22 warnings.
$ rpmlint zoneminder-debuginfo-1.30.4-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm
zoneminder-1.30.4-3.fc27.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3
[Bug 3] Tracker: Packages under review.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4
[Bug 4] Tracker: Accepted packages.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.