https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519747
--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
- Why do you use a patch instead of using iconv in %prep?
%prep
%setup -q
iconv --from=ISO-8859-1 --to=UTF-8 AUTHORS > AUTHORS.new && \
touch -r AUTHORS AUTHORS.new && \
mv AUTHORS.new AUTHORS
- Escape the macros in your changelog entry by doubling the %
- As mentioned before, COPYING should be included with %license, not %doc
- Still have utf-8 errors for this 3 files:
libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/AUTHORS
libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/COPYING
libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/sample_files.zip
Patching doesn't change encoding, see first point.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/libdigidocpp
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Pac...
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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", "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)",
"zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* Ms-RL", "LGPL (v2.1 or
later)", "*No
copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 199 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/libdigidocpp/review-
libdigidocpp/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 81920 bytes in 10 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]: 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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
libdigidocpp-debuginfo , libdigidocpp-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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: libdigidocpp-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
libdigidocpp-devel-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
libdigidocpp-doc-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
libdigidocpp-debuginfo-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
libdigidocpp-debugsource-3.13.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
libdigidocpp-3.13.2-1.fc28.src.rpm
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/878252.p12
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/digidocpp/schema/OpenDocument_dsig.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/digidocpp/schema/OpenDocument_manifest.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/digidocpp/schema/XAdES01903v132-201601-relaxed.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/digidocpp/schema/XAdES01903v132-201601.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/digidocpp/schema/XAdES01903v141-201601.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/conf.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/digidocpp/schema/en_31916201v010101.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/digidocpp/schema/ts_119612v020101_additionaltypes_xsd.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/digidocpp/schema/ts_119612v020101_sie_xsd.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/digidocpp/schema/ts_119612v020201_201601xsd.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/xml.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/digidocpp/schema/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp/AUTHORS
libdigidocpp.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp/COPYING
libdigidocpp-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
libdigidocpp-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-devel/AUTHORS
libdigidocpp-devel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-devel/COPYING
libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/AUTHORS
libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/COPYING
libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/sample_files.zip
libdigidocpp-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libdigidocpp.src:99: W: macro-in-%changelog %make_build
libdigidocpp.src:100: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot}
libdigidocpp.src:100: W: macro-in-%changelog %make_install
libdigidocpp.src:101: W: macro-in-%changelog %clean
libdigidocpp.src:101: W: macro-in-%changelog %{buildroot}
libdigidocpp.src:102: W: macro-in-%changelog %license
libdigidocpp.src:102: W: macro-in-%changelog %doc
libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{name}
libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{version}
libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{release}
libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{name}
libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{version}
libdigidocpp.src:103: W: macro-in-%changelog %{release}
libdigidocpp.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line
10)
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 36 warnings.
--
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