Attachment 714763 Details for Bug 829750 – fedora-review

fedora-review

review.txt (text/plain), 5.94 KB, created by Shawn Iwinski on 2013-03-22 20:21:42 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Shawn Iwinski

Created: 2013-03-22 20:21:42 UTC

Size: 5.94 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-insert-1.2-2.fc19.noarch.rpm
>1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
>
>
>
>
>Rpmlint (installed packages)
>----------------------------
># rpmlint drupal6-insert
>1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
># echo 'rpmlint-done:'
>
>
>
>Requires
>--------
>drupal6-insert (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    drupal6
>    drupal6-cck
>
>
>
>Provides
>--------
>drupal6-insert:
>    drupal6-insert
>
>
>
>MD5-sum check
>-------------
>http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/insert-6.x-1.2.tar.gz :
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 064a897199fc79b2d9595a1172ea739b9efda4a43da392ca7606ccdac0fc32fc
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 064a897199fc79b2d9595a1172ea739b9efda4a43da392ca7606ccdac0fc32fc
>
>
>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 829750

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 829750: 714763 | 714764