Bug 1322596

PASSED

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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners:
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
     contains icons.
     Note: icons in simple-ccsm
[x]: 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 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[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]: 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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

===== 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.
[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]: 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).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: simple-ccsm-0.8.12-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          simple-ccsm-0.8.12-1.fc25.src.rpm
simple-ccsm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Compiz -> Compile
simple-ccsm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary simple-ccsm
simple-ccsm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Compiz -> Compile
simple-ccsm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/compiz-reloaded/simple-ccsm/releases/download/v0.8.12/simple-ccsm-0.8.12.tar.xz HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
simple-ccsm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Compiz -> Compile
simple-ccsm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary simple-ccsm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
simple-ccsm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/python2
    ccsm
    compiz-plugins-main
    python-gobject



Provides
--------
simple-ccsm:
    appdata()
    appdata(simple-ccsm.appdata.xml)
    application()
    application(simple-ccsm.desktop)
    simple-ccsm



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/compiz-reloaded/simple-ccsm/releases/download/v0.8.12/simple-ccsm-0.8.12.tar.xz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7bef1ab66dc107fb9c0a9745cba506ac0016987fa80d8b4047db773aa370932f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7bef1ab66dc107fb9c0a9745cba506ac0016987fa80d8b4047db773aa370932f


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -r -n simple-ccsm -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/simple-ccsm

simple-ccsm-0.8.12-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9beb829501

simple-ccsm-0.8.12-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3cce33fcec

simple-ccsm-0.8.12-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-50b57e4fd1

simple-ccsm-0.8.12-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9beb829501

simple-ccsm-0.8.12-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-50b57e4fd1

simple-ccsm-0.8.12-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3cce33fcec

simple-ccsm-0.8.12-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

simple-ccsm-0.8.12-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

simple-ccsm-0.8.12-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.