Attachment 844042 Details for Bug 1047596 – review.txt

review.txt

review.txt (text/plain), 6.51 KB, created by Remi Collet on 2014-01-01 06:35:29 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Remi Collet

Created: 2014-01-01 06:35:29 UTC

Size: 6.51 KB

patch

obsolete

>Package Review
>==============
>
>Legend:
>[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.
>[-]: 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. No licenses
>     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
>      single generated file, so public domain.
>[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
>[-]: 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.
>[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
>[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]: 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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
>[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>     (~1MB) or number of files.
>     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
>[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
>
>===== SHOULD items =====
>
>Generic:
>[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
>[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
>     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
>[-]: 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.
>[x]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
>[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
>[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
>[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
>[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
>[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
>
>===== EXTRA items =====
>
>Generic:
>[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.
>
>PHP:
>[x]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files.
>     Note: phpci static analyze results in /home/extras/SPECS/review/1047596
>     -php-channel-phpseclib/phpci.log
>
>
>Rpmlint
>-------
>Checking: php-channel-phpseclib-1.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
>          php-channel-phpseclib-1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
>php-channel-phpseclib.noarch: W: no-documentation
>php-channel-phpseclib.src:19: W: unversioned-explicit-provides php-channel(%{channelname})
>php-channel-phpseclib.src:41: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 41)
>2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
>
>
>
>
>Rpmlint (installed packages)
>----------------------------
># rpmlint php-channel-phpseclib
>php-channel-phpseclib.noarch: W: no-documentation
>1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
># echo 'rpmlint-done:'
>
>
>
>Requires
>--------
>php-channel-phpseclib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    /bin/sh
>    /usr/bin/pear
>    php-pear(PEAR)
>
>
>
>Provides
>--------
>php-channel-phpseclib:
>    php-channel(phpseclib.sourceforge.net)
>    php-channel-phpseclib
>
>
>
>Source checksums
>----------------
>http://phpseclib.sourceforge.net/channel.xml :
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f91a403639922f07b0732eb65f0032c81574abceaea069f52b4e59fc61e16f86
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f91a403639922f07b0732eb65f0032c81574abceaea069f52b4e59fc61e16f86
>
>
>Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
>Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1047596
>Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64
>Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api
>Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, Ruby
>Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 1047596: 844042