<html>
<head>
<base href="http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/" />
</head>
<body><span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:sergio@serjux.com" title="Sérgio Basto <sergio@serjux.com>"> <span class="fn">Sérgio Basto</span></a>
</span> changed
<a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_ASSIGNED "
title="ASSIGNED - Review request: mp3diags - Find and fix Problems in MP3 Files"
href="http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4216">bug 4216</a>
<br>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
<tr>
<th>What</th>
<th>Removed</th>
<th>Added</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">Status</td>
<td>NEW
</td>
<td>ASSIGNED
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">CC</td>
<td>
</td>
<td>sergio@serjux.com
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">Blocks</td>
<td>3
</td>
<td>4
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">Assignee</td>
<td>rpmfusion-package-review@rpmfusion.org
</td>
<td>sergio@serjux.com
</td>
</tr></table>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_ASSIGNED "
title="ASSIGNED - Review request: mp3diags - Find and fix Problems in MP3 Files"
href="http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4216#c1">Comment # 1</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_ASSIGNED "
title="ASSIGNED - Review request: mp3diags - Find and fix Problems in MP3 Files"
href="http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4216">bug 4216</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:sergio@serjux.com" title="Sérgio Basto <sergio@serjux.com>"> <span class="fn">Sérgio Basto</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: make gcc-c++
See: <a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2</a>
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[ ]: 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: "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or
generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/sergio/rpmbuild/4216-mp3diags/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/40x40, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/40x40/apps
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in mp3diags
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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 30720 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]: 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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
===== 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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]: 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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: mp3diags-1.2.03-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
mp3diags-1.2.03-1.fc26.src.rpm
mp3diags.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US renamer -> rename,
reamer, renames
mp3diags.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/mp3diags/COPYING
mp3diags.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MP3Diags
mp3diags.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mp3diags
mp3diags.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US renamer -> rename,
reamer, renames
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: mp3diags-debuginfo-1.2.03-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
mp3diags.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US renamer -> rename,
reamer, renames
mp3diags.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/mp3diags/COPYING
mp3diags.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mp3diags
mp3diags.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MP3Diags
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Requires
--------
mp3diags (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
hicolor-icon-theme
libQtCore.so.4()(64bit)
libQtGui.so.4()(64bit)
libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit)
libQtXml.so.4()(64bit)
libboost_program_options.so.1.60.0()(64bit)
libboost_serialization.so.1.60.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libmp3lame.so.0()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
mp3gain
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
mp3diags:
application()
application(mp3diags.desktop)
mp3diags
mp3diags(x86-64)
Source checksums
----------------
<a href="http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/mp3diags/MP3Diags-1.2.03.tar.gz">http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/mp3diags/MP3Diags-1.2.03.tar.gz</a> :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
8dce26781123150eb920acd1a1217601c55c8366f72b4cccd62bba53c3a73f53
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
8dce26781123150eb920acd1a1217601c55c8366f72b4cccd62bba53c3a73f53
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --other-bz <a href="https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org">https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org</a>
-b 4216 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64-rpmfusion_nonfree
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
To finish all mp3 tools ... , issues just "These BR are not needed: make
gcc-c++" I also agree that may stay.
rpmlint incorrect-fsf-address <a href="https://sourceforge.net/p/mp3diags/tickets/3101/">https://sourceforge.net/p/mp3diags/tickets/3101/</a>
(correct), the other 3 warnings can't be fixed.
Package approved !</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>