Login
Log in using an SSO provider:
Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Login using a Red Hat Bugzilla account
Forgot Password
Create an Account
Red Hat Bugzilla – Attachment 714760 Details for
Bug 829775
Review Request: drupal6-markdown - Markdown modules for drupal6
Home
New
Search
Simple Search
Advanced Search
My Links
Browse
Requests
Reports
Current State
Search
Tabular reports
Graphical reports
Duplicates
Other Reports
User Changes
Plotly Reports
Bug Status
Bug Severity
Non-Defaults
Product Dashboard
Help
Page Help!
Bug Writing Guidelines
What's new
Browser Support Policy
5.0.4.rh109 Release notes
FAQ
Guides index
User guide
Web Services
Contact
Legal
Migrated Products
[?]
This site requires JavaScript to be enabled to function correctly, please enable it.
fedora-review
review.txt (text/plain), 5.93 KB, created by
Shawn Iwinski
on 2013-03-22 20:11:54 UTC
(
hide
)
Description:
fedora-review
Filename:
MIME Type:
Creator:
Shawn Iwinski
Created:
2013-03-22 20:11:54 UTC
Size:
5.93 KB
patch
obsolete
>Package Review >============== > >Key: >[x] = Pass >[!] = Fail >[-] = Not applicable >[?] = Not evaluated >[ ] = Manual review needed > > > >===== MUST items ===== > >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]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. >[x]: Changelog in prescribed format. >[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required > > EPEL 5 among target distributions. > >[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. >[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: %defattr present but not needed > > EPEL 5 among target distributions. > >[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. >[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package >[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. >[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. >[-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. >[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines >[x]: 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. >[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". 1 files have unknown license. >[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. >[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. >[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. >[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. >[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. >[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. >[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. >[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local >[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: No rpmlint messages. > >===== SHOULD items ===== > >Generic: >[x]: Buildroot is not present > Note: Buildroot: present but not needed > > EPEL 5 among target distributions. > >[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) > Note: %clean present but not required > > EPEL 5 among target distributions. > >[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. >[-]: 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. >[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. >[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag >[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. >[x]: Dist tag is present. >[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. >[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. >[x]: SourceX is a working URL. >[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. > >===== EXTRA items ===== > >Generic: >[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is > arched. >[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: No rpmlint messages. >[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > >Rpmlint >------- >Checking: drupal6-markdown-1.3-1.fc19.noarch.rpm >1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > > > >Rpmlint (installed packages) >---------------------------- ># rpmlint drupal6-markdown >1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ># echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > >Requires >-------- >drupal6-markdown (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > drupal6 > > > >Provides >-------- >drupal6-markdown: > drupal6-markdown > > > >MD5-sum check >------------- >http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/markdown-6.x-1.3.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b9e05a9db3a13065c5cf5b9fe2a06725bb58ad36a3ae1675864c38993281d620 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b9e05a9db3a13065c5cf5b9fe2a06725bb58ad36a3ae1675864c38993281d620 > > >Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 >Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 >Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 829775
You cannot view the attachment while viewing its details because your browser does not support IFRAMEs.
View the attachment on a separate page
.
View Attachment As Raw
Actions:
View
Attachments on
bug 829775
: 714760 |
714761