Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tintou/unicode-cldr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00720675-unicode-cldr/unicode-cldr.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/tintou/unicode-cldr/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00720675-unicode-cldr/unicode-cldr-32.0.1-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Hi! I've seen that the Unicode CLDR Data wasn't packaged, and as I'd like to use it in some of my apps, I'd like to propose it for inclusion into Fedora From the website: The Unicode CLDR provides key building blocks for software to support the world's languages, with the largest and most extensive standard repository of locale data available. Fedora Account System Username: tintou
Taking this review. I will also be sponsoring this packager.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 2437 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1548744-unicode-cldr/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/unicode/cldr, /usr/share/unicode [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/unicode/cldr/common/annotations(cldr-emoji-annotation), /usr/share/unicode/cldr/common(cldr-emoji-annotation), /usr/share/unicode/cldr/common/annotationsDerived(cldr-emoji- annotation) [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. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: 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 2 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 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: [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in unicode- cldr-common , unicode-cldr-keyboards [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. [-]: 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: unicode-cldr-common-32.0.1-1.fc28.noarch.rpm unicode-cldr-keyboards-32.0.1-1.fc28.noarch.rpm unicode-cldr-32.0.1-1.fc28.src.rpm unicode-cldr-keyboards.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/unicode/cldr/keyboards/.project 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory unicode-cldr-keyboards.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/unicode/cldr/keyboards/.project 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- unicode-cldr-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): unicode-cldr-keyboards (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- unicode-cldr-common: unicode-cldr-common unicode-cldr-core unicode-cldr-keyboards: unicode-cldr-keyboards Source checksums ---------------- https://unicode.org/Public/cldr/32.0.1/cldr-common-32.0.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 802518b3b91b2a4912a9a86482f3cd89517571e2dafaf2a3761d95e0d5df8907 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 802518b3b91b2a4912a9a86482f3cd89517571e2dafaf2a3761d95e0d5df8907 https://unicode.org/Public/cldr/32.0.1/cldr-keyboards-32.0.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e5d1005558b6db14b2238af35e1431f3ef02ae0e604810c6fe611a9b6bcb38f6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e5d1005558b6db14b2238af35e1431f3ef02ae0e604810c6fe611a9b6bcb38f6 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1548744 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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
Based on the report, there are a couple of things to review: * You include the ASL license file and the ICU license, but they're not declared in the tag. Moreover, based on the readme and other supporting information[1], it appears that the only license file you need to include for the two subpackages you have is unicode-license.txt. Please revise accordingly. [1]: http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/u/unicode-cldr-core/unicode-cldr-core_32.0.1-1_copyright * The unowned directories above these two need to be properly "owned". This is done with the %dir directive[2]. This will be co-owned by both subpackages, since they are independent ones. [2]: http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
Hi @tintou, Knowing that you removes the NEEDINFO, do you still want this package to be reviewed? also, You need to find a sponsor to be in packager group: https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/
Hi Didik, I no longer want it to be packaged