Package Review http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Background_Contest/Results In April/May 2014, Sugar Labs held its first annual contest to create background images to be included in the next release of Sugar. It was a opportunity to stimulate kids to be artists, to explore and share, and to be part of a project used by million of kids in the world. SPEC: http://people.sugarlabs.org/~german/dev/sugar-backgrounds.spec SRPM: http://people.sugarlabs.org/~german/dev/sugar-backgrounds-0.102.0-1.src.rpm [german@tecra rpmbuild]$ rpmlint -i SPECS/sugar-backgrounds.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [german@tecra rpmbuild]$ rpmlint -i SRPMS/sugar-backgrounds-0.102.0-1.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [german@tecra rpmbuild]$ rpmlint -i RPMS/noarch/sugar-backgrounds-0.102.0-1.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Hi thanx for the nice backgrounds, unofficial review here, I need a sponsor. Fails: [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gnome-background- properties(gnome-backgrounds) delete following line: %dir %{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Delete the rm -rf $BUILDROOT in %install The package depends on gnome-background-properties because it installs files in %{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties. You might want to split up the package in two (or more packages) so that the images are separated from the desktop specific configuration, see heisenbug-backgrounds.spec for example. Should: [!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). change: Release: 1 to: Release: 1%{?dist} Note: %defattr present but not needed can be deleted [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed You can delete the following line: BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gnome-background- properties(gnome-backgrounds) [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. [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]: 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 1 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 [!]: 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: [!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [!]: 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). [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]: 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.
No response for over two months. Do you still want to continue with this review?
No response since last comment for three months, I'm closing this request when no response is received within a week. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
closing this