Spec URL: http://cicku.me/sfk.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/sfk-1.7.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This is the Swiss File Knife (SFK), a command line multi function tool created by StahlWorks Technologies which combines many functions in a single, portable executable that belongs onto every USB stick. Search and convert text files, instant simple FTP/HTTP server, find duplicate files, compare folders, treesize, run own commands on all files of a folder - it's all within a single tool. Fedora Account System Username: cicku
I will review it either today or tomorrow.
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: "Unknown or generated". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1065624-sfk/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. [-]: 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. [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. [-]: 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 %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: [-]: 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. [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 (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: sfk-1.7.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm sfk-1.7.0-1.fc20.src.rpm sfk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti sfk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US treesize -> tree size, tree-size, treeless sfk.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sfk/ChangeLog sfk.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sfk/COPYING sfk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sfk sfk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti sfk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US treesize -> tree size, tree-size, treeless 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint sfk sfk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti sfk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US treesize -> tree size, tree-size, treeless sfk.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sfk/ChangeLog sfk.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/sfk/COPYING sfk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sfk 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- sfk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- sfk: sfk sfk(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/swissfileknife/1-swissfileknife/1.7.0/sfk170.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1a6ef03d604661b2e2d607025e83740c1675945326790aaf4327dcc1c615ec11 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1a6ef03d604661b2e2d607025e83740c1675945326790aaf4327dcc1c615ec11 Just one comment - * It will be nice, if you can fix the "wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding" rpmlint warning. (not a blocker) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding * License looks fine. Those 37 files are not problematic. The source website mentions BSD and so does the source tarball. PACKAGE APPROVED.
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #2) > Just one comment - > > * It will be nice, if you can fix the "wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding" > rpmlint warning. (not a blocker) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line- > encoding > > * License looks fine. Those 37 files are not problematic. The source website > mentions BSD and so does the source tarball. > > > PACKAGE APPROVED. But actually there are 2 comments, not only one. I've notified upstream about the rpmlint issue, and he will clean them later. Anyway, please change the bug from NEW to ASSIGNED when you take over a package. Thank you. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: sfk Short Description: The Swiss File Knife File Tree Processor Owners: cicku Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3) > > > Anyway, please change the bug from NEW to ASSIGNED when you take over a > package. > > Thank you. > Oops! I thought I did that! Sorry! :)
Git done (by process-git-requests).
sfk-1.7.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sfk-1.7.0-1.fc20
sfk-1.7.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sfk-1.7.0-1.el6
sfk-1.7.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sfk-1.7.0-1.fc19
sfk-1.7.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
sfk-1.7.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
sfk-1.7.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.