Attachment 902362 Details for Bug 1104746 – f-e review.txt

f-e review.txt

review.txt (text/plain), 7.41 KB, created by Jamie Duncan on 2014-06-04 23:05:20 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Jamie Duncan

Created: 2014-06-04 23:05:20 UTC

Size: 7.41 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:
>     "GPL (v2 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
>     /home/jduncan/1104746-soscleaner/licensecheck.txt
>[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/soscleaner-0.1
>[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/soscleaner-0.1
>[ ]: 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.
>[ ]: 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 1 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 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]: 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:
>[!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
>[ ]: 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]: 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.
>
>
>Rpmlint
>-------
>Checking: soscleaner-0.1-12.noarch.rpm
>          soscleaner-0.1-12.src.rpm
>soscleaner.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sosreport -> misreport, presort
>soscleaner.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/SOSCleaner.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
>soscleaner.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sosreport -> misreport, presort
>soscleaner.src:17: W: setup-not-quiet
>2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
>
>
>
>
>Rpmlint (installed packages)
>----------------------------
># rpmlint soscleaner
>soscleaner.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sosreport -> misreport, presort
>soscleaner.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/SOSCleaner.py 0644L /usr/bin/env
>1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
># echo 'rpmlint-done:'
>
>
>
>Requires
>--------
>soscleaner (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    /usr/bin/python2
>    python(abi)
>    python-magic
>
>
>
>Provides
>--------
>soscleaner:
>    soscleaner
>
>
>
>Source checksums
>----------------
>http://people.redhat.com/jduncan/soscleaner/soscleaner-0.1.tar.gz :
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 159c646e0e44d73402f156de3ba89b1fe4493569d775fd2d845f72ce00c1e0fa
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 159c646e0e44d73402f156de3ba89b1fe4493569d775fd2d845f72ce00c1e0fa
>
>
>Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
>Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1104746
>Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
>Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
>Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
>Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 1104746: 902362