Spec URL: https://heffer.fedorapeople.org/review/ecdsautils/ecdsautils.spec SRPM URL: https://heffer.fedorapeople.org/review/ecdsautils/ecdsautils-0.3.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: This collection of ECDSA utilities can be used to sign and verify data in a simple manner. Fedora Account System Username: heffer This package is used to create signed firmware (esp. Freifunk Gluon) releases for many Freifunk Communities in Germany.
hi Felix! Please inform upstream about the missing license text file and mention this in the spec file. In addition, please insert %license COPYRIGHT to the files section. Cheers, Florian
Added a pull request upstream for the license file: https://github.com/tcatm/ecdsautils/pull/10 Will carry this as a patch as long as it's not contained in a release. Spec URL: https://heffer.fedorapeople.org/review/ecdsautils/ecdsautils.spec SRPM URL: https://heffer.fedorapeople.org/review/ecdsautils/ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.fc23.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: Cannot find COPYRIGHT in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ---> NOT an issue! Package uses %license ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)". [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 [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]: 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 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ---> https://github.com/tcatm/ecdsautils/pull/10 [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. ---> NOT an issue. Upstream does not provide an license text file. https://github.com/tcatm/ecdsautils/pull/10 [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9107210 [-]: %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: ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.fc23.src.rpm ecdsautils.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) keygen -> key gen, key-gen, oxygen ecdsautils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ecdsakeygen ecdsautils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ecdsaverify ecdsautils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ecdsasign ecdsautils.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) keygen -> key gen, key-gen, oxygen 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- ecdsautils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libuecc.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ecdsautils: ecdsautils ecdsautils(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tcatm/ecdsautils/archive/v0.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a828417c985ccfc623bb613e92ccc8af6c6f24a5bcab8b112b90c033a816204f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a828417c985ccfc623bb613e92ccc8af6c6f24a5bcab8b112b90c033a816204f Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1194189 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: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG ===== Solution ===== APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ecdsautils Short Description: Tiny collection of programs used for ECDSA (keygen, sign, verify) Upstream URL: https://github.com/tcatm/ecdsautils Owners: heffer Branches: f20 f21 f22 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.fc20
ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.fc21
ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.fc22
ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.el7
ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
ecdsautils-0.3.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.