https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040118
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #24 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora(a)svgames.pl> ---
Some small issues:
Requires: tcl
This is not needed, rpmbuild will pick up the
fact that /usr/bin/deal
links to libtcl8.6.so, and will generate a Requires automagically.
deal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US practise ->
practice, praise
Self-explanatory.
if [ -f %{build_docs}/html/ex/$(basename $f .tcl).txt ] && \
cmp $f %{build_docs}/html/ex/$(basename $f .tcl).txt ; then \
ln -fs ../../../../%{name}/ex/$(basename $f) $(basename $f .tcl).txt ; \
You
could avoid the repeated calls to basename by putting the result in some
variable.
Still, these are quite minor, so - PACKAGE APPROVED.
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.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 358400 bytes in 34 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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.
[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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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.
Note: Link to successful scratch build in koji:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83415861
[-]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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: deal-3.1.11-6.fc37.x86_64.rpm
deal-debuginfo-3.1.11-6.fc37.x86_64.rpm
deal-debugsource-3.1.11-6.fc37.x86_64.rpm
deal-3.1.11-6.fc37.src.rpm
deal.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US practise -> practice,
praise
deal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pbn -> pen, pin, pan
deal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US practise -> practice, praise
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: deal-debuginfo-3.1.11-6.fc37.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/gtwilliams/deal/archive/v3.1.11/deal-3.1.11.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
d0c785ad2076a603086122160259f7f059e42d245b8b066b389e850f8188ebae
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
d0c785ad2076a603086122160259f7f059e42d245b8b066b389e850f8188ebae
Requires
--------
deal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libtcl8.6.so()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
tcl
deal-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
deal-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
deal:
deal
deal(x86-64)
deal-debuginfo:
deal-debuginfo
deal-debuginfo(x86-64)
debuginfo(build-id)
deal-debugsource:
deal-debugsource
deal-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2040118
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, R, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Python, Java,
PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040118