https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 --- Comment #1 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; 2012-05-07 08:28:29 CEST --- New packages SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad-0... Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad.s... rpmlint vdr-markad-0.1.3-2.20120504git.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-markad.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-markad.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/vdr/libvdr-markad.so.1.7.27 vdr-markad.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/markad vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/vdr/plugins/markad vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/locale/sk_SK/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/locale/it_IT/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/locale/de_DE/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/locale/es_ES/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /usr/share/locale/fi_FI/LC_MESSAGES/vdr-markad.mo vdr vdr-markad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary markad 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 --- Comment #3 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; 2012-05-07 20:32:54 CEST --- New rpms: SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad-0... SPEC URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/?a=NWfWmm_4q3U rpmlint output: rpmlint vdr-markad-0.1.3-3.20120504git.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-markad.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-markad.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/vdr/libvdr-markad.so.1.7.27 vdr-markad.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/markad vdr-markad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary markad 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 --- Comment #5 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; 2012-05-13 10:16:26 CEST --- upstream: Bugreport: COPYING have wrong fsf address # http://projects.vdr-developer.org/issues/974 Bugreport: missing manual page # http://projects.vdr-developer.org/issues/975 SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad-0... Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad.s... rpmlint output: rpmlint vdr-markad-0.1.3-5.20120504git.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-markad.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-markad.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary markad 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint vdr-markad-0.1.3-5.20120504git.fc17.src.rpm vdr-markad.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US vdr-markad.src: W: invalid-url Source0: vdr-plugin-markad_0.1.3.99+cvs20120504.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 --- Comment #7 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; 2012-09-25 09:34:46 CEST --- Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad-0... RPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad-0... %changelog * Mon Sep 24 2012 Martin Gansser <linux4martin(a)gmx.de&gt; - 0.1.4-1 - rebuild for new release rpmlint vdr-markad-0.1.4-1.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint vdr-markad-0.1.4-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm vdr-markad.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/markad.1.gz 100: warning: macro `Setup' not defined 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 --- Comment #9 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; 2012-09-30 18:04:34 CEST --- Spec URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad-0... SRPM URL: https://www.disk.dsl.o2online.de/FclyPlh/RPMS/VDR/vdr-markad/vdr-markad-0... %changelog * Mon Sep 25 2012 Martin Gansser <linux4martin(a)gmx.de&gt; - 0.1.5-8.20120929git - new git release i need a reviewer ! -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2 -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |leamas.alec(a)gmail.com --- Comment #11 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; 2014-05-02 14:39:43 CEST --- Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2s3vd3fbwovezxx/vdr-markad.spec SRPM URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9qd1r6gnpegpfm2/vdr-markad-0.1.4-3.20140421git3... %changelog * Mon Apr 21 2014 Martin Gansser <martinkg(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; - 0.1.4-3.20140421git3c99d47 - rebuild for new git version -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 --- Comment #12 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-05-02 16:16:30 CEST --- Why you have not used 'make install' ? -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 --- Comment #14 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-05-02 21:56:00 CEST --- - Compiler flags are not honored. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags - /usr/share/locale/sk_SK directory should be owned by 'filesystem' package. It's not an issue related to this package. - %{vdr_vardir}/markad/logos contains images. Why they are marked as configuration files? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/vdr-markad/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/sk_SK, /usr/share/locale/sk_SK/LC_MESSAGES [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/sk_SK, /usr/share/locale/sk_SK/LC_MESSAGES [!]: %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. [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 %doc. [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]: 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 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. [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]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: vdr-markad-0.1.4-3.20140421git3c99d47.fc21.x86_64.rpm vdr-markad-0.1.4-3.20140421git3c99d47.fc21.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint vdr-markad 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- vdr-markad (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(vdr-markad) libavcodec.so.55()(64bit) libavcodec.so.55(LIBAVCODEC_55)(64bit) libavutil.so.52()(64bit) libavutil.so.52(LIBAVUTIL_52)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) vdr(abi)(x86-64) Provides -------- vdr-markad: config(vdr-markad) libvdr-markad.so.2.0.6()(64bit) vdr-markad vdr-markad(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://projects.vdr-developer.org/git/vdr-plugin-markad.git/snapshot/vdr-... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5cd3df39371d99a8b49e7d0fafcaf043413a144afb449fb1111e2eaa526e2dc9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5cd3df39371d99a8b49e7d0fafcaf043413a144afb449fb1111e2eaa526e2dc9 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64-rpmfusion_free -rn vdr-markad-0.1.4-3.20140421git3c99d47.fc20.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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 -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 --- Comment #16 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-05-03 12:06:22 CEST --- (In reply to comment #15) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093920 -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #18 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-05-03 12:45:27 CEST --- (In reply to comment #17) Ah, yes. I remembered about something like that. 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2319 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | -- 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.