Attachment 844553 Details for Bug 1047599 – fedora-review.txt

fedora-review.txt

review.txt (text/plain), 7.19 KB, created by Shawn Iwinski on 2014-01-02 13:17:36 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Shawn Iwinski

Created: 2014-01-02 13:17:36 UTC

Size: 7.19 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.
>[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:
>     "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)".
>[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
>     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/pear/Math(php-pear-
>     Math-Stats)
>
>     %files should be:
>
>     %dir %{pear_phpdir}/Math
>     %{pear_phpdir}/Math/BigInteger.php
>
>[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
>[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
>[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
>[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
>
>     Even though existing pkgs use CamelCase, we have been trying to adhere
>     to the naming guideline "You should generally use lowercase", so:
>     php-phpseclib-math-biginteger
>
>[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]: 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]: 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
>[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>     beginning of %install.
>
>     Please remove this EPEL 5 piece "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in %install
>
>[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:
>[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
>     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
>     Note: %clean present but not required
>
>     Please remove this EPEL 5 piece
>
>[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
>     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
>
>     Please submit a query to upstream to include a license file and link to it
>     in your spec.
>
>[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
>
>     Please add the following from phpcompatinfo (can be done after initial
>     import; these are already loaded from php-common but we explicitly specify
>     all PHP extension requirements)
>     * php-date
>     * php-pcre
>
>     Description already mentional optional BCMath (php-bcmath) and GMP
>     (php-gmp) but you should also add a note about the OpenSSL (php-openssl)
>
>[x]: Package functions as described.
>[x]: Latest version is packaged.
>[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
>
>     We usually add a LICENSE file while we are waiting for upstream to add
>     one from our request.
>
>[-]: 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.
>[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
>[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
>[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
>[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
>[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
>[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
>
>PHP:
>[x]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files.
>
>
>Rpmlint
>-------
>Checking: php-phpseclib-Math-BigInteger-0.3.5-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
>          php-phpseclib-Math-BigInteger-0.3.5-1.fc21.src.rpm
>php-phpseclib-Math-BigInteger.noarch: W: no-documentation
>2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
>
>
>
>
>Rpmlint (installed packages)
>----------------------------
># rpmlint php-phpseclib-Math-BigInteger
>php-phpseclib-Math-BigInteger.noarch: W: no-documentation
>1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
># echo 'rpmlint-done:'
>
>
>
>Requires
>--------
>php-phpseclib-Math-BigInteger (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    /bin/sh
>    /usr/bin/pear
>    php-channel(phpseclib.sourceforge.net)
>    php-pear(PEAR)
>
>
>
>Provides
>--------
>php-phpseclib-Math-BigInteger:
>    php-pear(phpseclib.sourceforge.net/Math_BigInteger)
>    php-phpseclib-Math-BigInteger
>
>
>
>Source checksums
>----------------
>http://phpseclib.sourceforge.net/get/Math_BigInteger-0.3.5.tgz :
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9f2150f711f669289e27fe620f40ec1f381cde5d35dba04d2503d1b18c3139fd
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9f2150f711f669289e27fe620f40ec1f381cde5d35dba04d2503d1b18c3139fd
>
>
>Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
>Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1047599
>Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
>Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api
>Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, Ruby
>Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 1047599: 844552 | 844553