Spec URL & SRPM URL: https://dkaspar.fedorapeople.org/share/reviews/adobe-mappings-pdf/ Description: Mapping resources for PDF have a variety of functions, such as mapping CIDs (Character IDs) to character codes, or mapping character codes to other character codes. These mapping resources for PDF should not be confused with CMap resources. While both types of resources share the same file structure and syntax, they have very different functions. These PDF mapping resources are useful for some applications (e.g. Ghostscript) to function properly. Fedora Account System Username: dkaspar
Regarding your question about Code vs. Content: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Code_Vs_Content This package contains only content, which is however necessary for few of our applications in Fedora to work properly. The content is using Open Source license (BSD) and was part of the Fedora previously... This is just repackaging and putting some order into the previous mess... :)
Package Review ============== No major issues, spelling errors reported by rpmlint are errors in rpmlint itself. Giving 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /root /adobe-mappings-pdf/review-adobe-mappings-pdf/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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]: 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]: 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). [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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: adobe-mappings-pdf-20170901-1.fc26.noarch.rpm adobe-mappings-pdf-20170901-1.fc26.src.rpm adobe-mappings-pdf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ghostscript -> Ghost script, Ghost-script, Postscript adobe-mappings-pdf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ghostscript -> Ghost script, Ghost-script, Postscript adobe-mappings-pdf.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory adobe-mappings-pdf.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ghostscript -> Ghost script, Ghost-script, Postscript 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- adobe-mappings-pdf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- adobe-mappings-pdf: adobe-mappings-pdf Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/adobe-type-tools/mapping-resources-pdf/archive/20170901.tar.gz#/mapping-resources-pdf-20170901.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c8a990c96412ad895256fee0c70deef88dd99ec6f8bca85d83f378fc062d01fe CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c8a990c96412ad895256fee0c70deef88dd99ec6f8bca85d83f378fc062d01fe Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n adobe-mappings-pdf Buildroot used: fedora-26-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/adobe-mappings-pdf