Bug 988687

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package do not use a name that already exist
  Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/skkdic
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names


===== 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]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the 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.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 256000 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[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
[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).

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: Uses parallel make.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[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: skkdic-20130104-5.T1435.fc20.noarch.rpm
skkdic.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pubdic -> pubic, public
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint skkdic
skkdic.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pubdic -> pubic, public
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
skkdic (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
skkdic:
    skkdic



Source checksums
----------------
Using local file /home/ueno/cvs/skkdic/skkdic-20130104T1435.tar.bz2 as upstream
file:///home/ueno/cvs/skkdic/skkdic-20130104T1435.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 09fc9d35a0ee354e123581221692f17ab8a92977dcd7fbcd51af6c8d3ac7625a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 09fc9d35a0ee354e123581221692f17ab8a92977dcd7fbcd51af6c8d3ac7625a
http://openlab.ring.gr.jp/skk/skk/tools/unannotation.awk :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 207969e84174aece01955fa6c9381e5414c52c09829ce9407f6b9f97522c2745
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 207969e84174aece01955fa6c9381e5414c52c09829ce9407f6b9f97522c2745
Using local file /home/ueno/cvs/skkdic/create-skkdic-source.sh as upstream
file:///home/ueno/cvs/skkdic/create-skkdic-source.sh :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0337142d205873a77a12dc5f0671e82edacc0435a3b60330f648b84d5f0d15e1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0337142d205873a77a12dc5f0671e82edacc0435a3b60330f648b84d5f0d15e1
Using local file /home/ueno/cvs/skkdic/README-skkdic.rh.ja as upstream
file:///home/ueno/cvs/skkdic/README-skkdic.rh.ja :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 6a8cfc3249680034b9b549042bed348e6d460783c4f66290e1cb02b3a45226dc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6a8cfc3249680034b9b549042bed348e6d460783c4f66290e1cb02b3a45226dc


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n skkdic

Thanks for filing.  Looks good to me.
It would be nice to fix the wrong changelog dates some day.