Spec URL: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora19/testing/jpegoptim.spec SRPM URL: http://www.fateyev.com/RPMS/Fedora19/testing/SRPMS/jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.fc19.denf.src.rpm Description: Jpegoptim is an utility to optimize JPEG files. Provides lossless optimization (based on optimizing the Huffman tables) and "lossy" optimization based on setting maximum quality factor. Fedora Account System Username: dfateyev Rawhide scratch builds for this package are available here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6370149
- Please, fix these directories %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/jpegoptim %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1/jpegoptim.1 there is an extra slash. - I don't know if you already know that your package is not built in epel5 because of old MD5 used. - "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)" can be ignored because not related to the compilation of binary file. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1049551-jpegoptim/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: 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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [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. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 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 %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]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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). [ ]: 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. [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.fc21.src.rpm jpegoptim.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less, loss-less, loveless jpegoptim.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy jpegoptim.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less, loss-less, loveless jpegoptim.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint jpegoptim jpegoptim.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less, loss-less, loveless jpegoptim.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- jpegoptim (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62(LIBJPEG_6.2)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- jpegoptim: jpegoptim jpegoptim(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.kokkonen.net/tjko/src/jpegoptim-1.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : af46d2eb60fd2cf5ed517b24cc3c117df530ed92503260ba533259f855e62175 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : af46d2eb60fd2cf5ed517b24cc3c117df530ed92503260ba533259f855e62175 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1049551 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: BATCH, EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
Thanks for the review. > Please, fix these directories > %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/jpegoptim > %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1/jpegoptim.1 > there is an extra slash. Right, but it also helps to split the path visually ;) I'm aware of extra slashes but use them since there is no explicit prohibition in guidelines. > I don't know if you already know that your package is not built > in epel5 because of old MD5 used. Thanks for the reminder, it's related to an old MD5 checking bug existing in RHEL5. I think it won't affect "fedpkg build" since it imports only source files into Git unlike "koji" which builds packages from SRPMs.
(In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #2) > Thanks for the review. > > > Please, fix these directories > > %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/jpegoptim > > %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1/jpegoptim.1 > > there is an extra slash. > > Right, but it also helps to split the path visually ;) I'm aware of extra > slashes but use them since there is no explicit prohibition in guidelines. Okay. > > > I don't know if you already know that your package is not built > > in epel5 because of old MD5 used. > > Thanks for the reminder, it's related to an old MD5 checking bug existing in > RHEL5. I think it won't affect "fedpkg build" since it imports only source > files into Git unlike "koji" which builds packages from SRPMs. It was just to be more clear possible. Package approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jpegoptim Short Description: Utility to optimize JPEG files Owners: dfateyev Branches: f19 f20 f21 el5 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests). f21 not branched yet, devel is automatic.
jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.fc20
jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.fc19
jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.el6
jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.el5
jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
jpegoptim-1.3.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: jpegoptim New Branches: epel7 Owners: dfateyev
Git done (by process-git-requests).