Attachment 866926 Details for Bug 1069139 – fedora-review tool un-edited output

fedora-review tool un-edited output

review.txt (text/plain), 7.42 KB, created by Kashyap Chamarthy on 2014-02-24 10:49:47 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Kashyap Chamarthy

Created: 2014-02-24 10:49:47 UTC

Size: 7.42 KB

patch

obsolete

>
>This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
>also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
>- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
>  a list, create one.
>- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
>- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
>  listed by fedora-review.
>- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
>  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
>- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
>  in what you paste.
>- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
>  ones are mandatory, though)
>- Remove this text
>
>
>
>Package Review
>==============
>
>Legend:
>[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
>[ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
>
>===== MUST items =====
>
>Generic:
>[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>     Guidelines.
>[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
>     "Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
>     /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SPECS/gerritlib/licensecheck.txt
>[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
>[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
>[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
>[ ]: 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.
>[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
>[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
>[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
>[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
>[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>     Provides are present.
>[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
>[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
>[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
>[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
>[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
>[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>     (~1MB) or number of files.
>     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
>[ ]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
>
>Python:
>[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
>[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
>     provide egg info.
>[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
>[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
>[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
>
>===== SHOULD items =====
>
>Generic:
>[ ]: 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).
>[ ]: Package functions as described.
>[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
>[ ]: 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.
>[ ]: 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]: 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]: 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.
>
>
>Rpmlint
>-------
>Checking: gerritlib-0.3.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
>          gerritlib-0.3.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
>gerritlib.x86_64: E: no-binary
>gerritlib.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/gerritlib/LICENSE
>2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
>
>
>
>
>Rpmlint (installed packages)
>----------------------------
># rpmlint gerritlib
>gerritlib.x86_64: E: no-binary
>gerritlib.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/gerritlib/LICENSE
>1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
># echo 'rpmlint-done:'
>
>
>
>Requires
>--------
>gerritlib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    python(abi)
>    python-paramiko
>    python-pbr
>
>
>
>Provides
>--------
>gerritlib:
>    gerritlib
>    gerritlib(x86-64)
>
>
>
>Source checksums
>----------------
>https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/g/gerritlib/gerritlib-0.3.0.tar.gz :
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3fed1eb2816dafa030e5abaa3b61bedc9434659317481ccdf50a0dfaf522a8f7
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3fed1eb2816dafa030e5abaa3b61bedc9434659317481ccdf50a0dfaf522a8f7
>
>
>Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
>Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --rpm-spec -n ../SRPMS/gerritlib-0.3.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
>Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
>Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
>Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
>Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
>

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 1069139: 866926