https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215997
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi(a)redhat.com> ---
Convinced. Package approved.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
None
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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:
"GPL", "LGPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or
later)", "Unknown or
generated", "ISC GPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v3 or later)",
"LGPL (v2.1)",
"ISC", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)",
"GPL (v3)". 73 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/nmavrogi/review/1215997-compat-gnutls28/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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 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.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: 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.
[x]: %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]: 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:
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: compat-gnutls28-3.3.14-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
compat-gnutls28-3.3.14-1.fc21.src.rpm
compat-gnutls28.x86_64: W: no-documentation
compat-gnutls28.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gnutls -> gnus
compat-gnutls28.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnutls -> gnus
compat-gnutls28.src: W: strange-permission hobble-gnutls 0775L
compat-gnutls28.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
compat-gnutls28.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
compat-gnutls28.src:22: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
compat-gnutls28.src:22: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
compat-gnutls28.src:52: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib
compat-gnutls28.src:67: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 63, tab:
line 67)
compat-gnutls28.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gnutls-3.3.14-hobbled.tar.xz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings.
Requires
--------
compat-gnutls28 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
crypto-policies
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
libhogweed.so.2()(64bit)
libnettle.so.4()(64bit)
libp11-kit.so.0()(64bit)
libtasn1
libtasn1.so.6()(64bit)
libtasn1.so.6(LIBTASN1_0_3)(64bit)
libtspi.so.1()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
p11-kit-trust
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
compat-gnutls28:
bundled(gnulib)
compat-gnutls28
compat-gnutls28(x86-64)
libgnutls.so.28()(64bit)
libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_1_4)(64bit)
libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_2_10)(64bit)
libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_2_12)(64bit)
libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_2_8)(64bit)
libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_3_0_0)(64bit)
libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_3_1_0)(64bit)
libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_FIPS140)(64bit)
libgnutls.so.28(GNUTLS_PRIVATE)(64bit)
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1215997
Buildroot used: fedora-21-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
--
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