Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/sng.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/sng-1.1.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: SNG (Scriptable Network Graphics) is a minilanguage designed specifically to represent the entire contents of a PNG (Portable Network Graphics) file in an editable form. Thus, SNGs representing elaborate graphics images and ancillary chunk data can be readily generated or modified using only text tools. SNG is implemented by a compiler/decompiler called sng that losslessly translates between SNG and PNG. This will be used by diffoscope. Fedora Account System Username: zbyszek Koji rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16469919
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc grep make See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ==> This can be ignored as we would like to add all the Build dependencies. - Good to fix following rpmlint warning sng.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 10) ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1395522-sng/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 20480 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 %license. [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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sng- debuginfo [?]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: sng-1.1.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm sng-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm sng-1.1.0-1.fc26.src.rpm sng.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Lossless -> Loss less, Loss-less, Loveless sng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minilanguage -> mini language, mini-language, metalanguage sng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decompiler -> recompiled, compiler, recompile sng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US losslessly -> colorlessly, bloodlessly, sleeplessly sng.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Lossless -> Loss less, Loss-less, Loveless sng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minilanguage -> mini language, mini-language, metalanguage sng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decompiler -> recompiled, compiler, recompile sng.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US losslessly -> colorlessly, bloodlessly, sleeplessly sng.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 10) sng.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://sourceforge.net/projects/sng/files/sng-1.1.0.tar.gz timed out 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sng-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sng.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Lossless -> Loss less, Loss-less, Loveless sng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minilanguage -> mini language, mini-language, metalanguage sng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decompiler -> recompiled, compiler, recompile sng.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US losslessly -> colorlessly, bloodlessly, sleeplessly 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- sng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpng16.so.16()(64bit) libpng16.so.16(PNG16_0)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) sng-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- sng: sng sng(x86-64) sng-debuginfo: sng-debuginfo sng-debuginfo(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://sourceforge.net/projects/sng/files/sng-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 119c55870c1d1bdc65f7de9dbc62929ccb0c301c2fb79f77df63f5d477f34619 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 119c55870c1d1bdc65f7de9dbc62929ccb0c301c2fb79f77df63f5d477f34619 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1395522 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 APPROVED.
Thanks for the review.
> Source0: http://sourceforge.net/projects/sng/files/sng-1.1.0.tar.gz Is it better to use %{name}/%{version} instead of fixed strings in the Source field? I'm a new packager with two packages under review: bug 1369708 and 1369720. Appreciate if a review swap is possible.
(In reply to Yunying Sun from comment #3) > > Source0: http://sourceforge.net/projects/sng/files/sng-1.1.0.tar.gz > Is it better to use %{name}/%{version} instead of fixed strings in the > Source field? Fixed.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/sng
Built in rawhide, updates submitted.