Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-cuttlefish.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/erlang-cuttlefish-2.0.6-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Cuttlefish is a library for Erlang applications that wish to walk the fine line between Erlang app.configs and a sysctl-like syntax. The name is a pun on the pronunciation of 'sysctl' and jokes are better explained. Fedora Account System Username: peter
Looks good! I put a few !'s in there, but they are all optional so it's your choice. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== rbarlow items ===== These are all optional. [!]: Consider using only spaces or tabs, but not both. ===== 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]: 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 %license. [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". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rbarlow/review/1318278-erlang- cuttlefish/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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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 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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Note: Please add some comments over each patch in the spec file describing why it is present. Consider adding patch 4 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. [x]: %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]: 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. ===== 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: erlang-cuttlefish-2.0.6-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm erlang-cuttlefish-2.0.6-1.fc25.src.rpm erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sysctl -> systolic erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US configs -> con figs, con-figs, configure erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sysctl -> systolic erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cuttlefish erlang-cuttlefish.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sysctl -> systolic erlang-cuttlefish.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US configs -> con figs, con-figs, configure erlang-cuttlefish.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sysctl -> systolic erlang-cuttlefish.src:8: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 7) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sysctl -> systolic erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US configs -> con figs, con-figs, configure erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sysctl -> systolic erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib erlang-cuttlefish.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cuttlefish 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- erlang-cuttlefish (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): erlang-erts(x86-64) erlang-eunit(x86-64) erlang-getopt(x86-64) erlang-kernel(x86-64) erlang-lager(x86-64) erlang-mustache(x86-64) erlang-sasl(x86-64) erlang-stdlib(x86-64) erlang-syntax_tools(x86-64) Provides -------- erlang-cuttlefish: erlang-cuttlefish erlang-cuttlefish(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/basho/cuttlefish/archive/2.0.6/cuttlefish-2.0.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ca869b6dd34ca2b9dae84ce648a2734323466c25c505836e812eb73d79a7115b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ca869b6dd34ca2b9dae84ce648a2734323466c25c505836e812eb73d79a7115b Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1318278 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Randy, thanks for the review! I'll send some patches upstream asap and ask for licensing doc.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/erlang-cuttlefish
erlang-cuttlefish-2.0.6-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-97f9314c9a
erlang-cuttlefish-2.0.6-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-97f9314c9a
erlang-cuttlefish-2.0.6-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.