Attachment 610409 Details for Bug 854837 – Full review file

Full review file

erik-schilling-inkscape-sozi-review.txt (text/plain), 8.13 KB, created by Erik Schilling on 2012-09-06 16:18:02 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Erik Schilling

Created: 2012-09-06 16:18:02 UTC

Size: 8.13 KB

patch

obsolete

>
>Package Review
>==============
>
>Key:
>- = N/A
>x = Pass
>! = Fail
>? = Not evaluated
>
>
>
>==== Generic ====
>[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
>     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
>[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
>[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>     Guidelines.
>[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
>     least one supported primary architecture.
>[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
>[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
>     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
>[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
>[!]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
>     One of your changelog entries has a trailing $.
>     Format should be version-release.
>     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
>[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
>[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
>     Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
>[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
>[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
>[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
>[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>[?]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
>[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
>[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
>[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
>[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
>[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>     beginning of %install.
>     Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
>[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
>[x]: MUST 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 %doc.
>[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
>     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
>
>     If the source is dual licensed use "or" instead of "and":
>     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Dual_Licensing_Scenarios
>[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
>     names).
>[!]: MUST If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
>     must be documented in the spec.
>[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
>[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
>[?]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
>     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
>     Question: Why is Provides:   %{pkgname} = %{version}-%{release} needed?
>[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
>[?]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>     Provides are present.
>     See question above
>[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
>[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
>[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
>[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
>[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
>[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
>     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
>[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
>     provided in the spec URL.
>[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
>[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
>     %{name}.spec.
>[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
>[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
>[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
>[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
>     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
>[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
>     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
>     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
>[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
>[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
>     /usr/sbin.
>[?]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
>     --requires).
>[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
>[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
>     According to this list: https://github.com/senshu/Sozi/downloads
>     12.09 is available
>[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
>     upstream.
>[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
>[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
>     Note: Source0 (sozi-release-12.05-08120927.zip)
>[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
>[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
>     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
>[?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>     architectures.
>[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
>[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>     files.
>[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
>
>Issues:
>[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>     beginning of %install.
>     Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
>See: None
>[!]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
>     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
>     license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
>See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
>[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
>     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
>See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames
>
>Rpmlint
>-------
>Checking: inkscape-sozi-12.05-2.fc17.src.rpm
>          inkscape-sozi-12.05-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
>inkscape-sozi.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 12.05-08120927-2$ ['12.05-2.fc17', '12.05-2']
>inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/extensions/sozi_extras_upgrade.inx
>inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/extensions/sozi_extras_addvideo.js
>inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/extensions/sozi.inx
>inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/extensions/sozi_extras_addvideo_upgrade.py
>inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/extensions/sozi.css
>inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/extensions/sozi_extras_addvideo.inx
>inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/extensions/sozi_upgrade.py
>inkscape-sozi.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/inkscape/extensions/sozi.js
>2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 1 warnings.
>
>
>Rpmlint (installed packages)
>----------------------------
>Cannot parse rpmlint output:
>Requires
>--------
>inkscape-sozi-12.05-2.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    
>    /usr/bin/env  
>    inkscape  
>    pygtk2  
>    python-lxml  
>    python2  
>
>Provides
>--------
>inkscape-sozi-12.05-2.fc17.noarch.rpm:
>    
>    inkscape-sozi = 12.05-2.fc17
>    sozi-release = 12.05-2.fc17
>
>MD5-sum check
>-------------
>https://github.com/downloads/senshu/Sozi/sozi-release-12.05-08120927.zip :
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 55b0e1c0351feb3cd6f28e72019f3f93aa02d609cabc7b96b749914bc2b1c24e
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 55b0e1c0351feb3cd6f28e72019f3f93aa02d609cabc7b96b749914bc2b1c24e
>
>
>Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09
>Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 854837
>External plugins:

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 854837: 610409