https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273
--- Comment #27 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de> ---
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #26)
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
> This is fine, no need to change this.
ok
[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: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa", "GPL (v2
or
later)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v3.0)", "Unknown or
generated".
1555 files have unknown license.
> License is GPLv3 not GPLv3+. See LICENSE file
done
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
> You should really add a breakdown if possible
done
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
/usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/bear-factory
> This can be fixed by adding the following to the main package:
BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme
Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
> Which is something I missed when I was reviewing bear. Please fix this.
- add RR hicolor-icon-theme in both packages, I think BR is not required.
[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.
[-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
contains icons.
Note: icons in asgp
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> ExcludeArch is required, but this is fine until bear is fixed on ppc64le... This
arch is largely broken for a lot of stuff, so it's not a big deal.
ok
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in asgp-
data , asgp-debuginfo
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
> If this patch is upstreamable, I would send it, elsewise it doesn't matter too
much.
done
new rpms:
Spec URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/asgp.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/asgp-1.0.18-4.fc25.src.rpm
%changelog
* Mon Jan 02 2017 Martin Gansser <martinkg(a)fedoraproject.org> - 1.0.18-4
- correct license to GPLv3
- add license breakdown
- add BR desktop-file-utils
- add RR hicolor-icon-theme
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component