Spec URL: https://rhea.fedorapeople.org/package-review/dotnet-build-reference-packages/dotnet-build-reference-packages.spec SRPM URL: https://rhea.fedorapeople.org/package-review/dotnet-build-reference-packages/dotnet-build-reference-packages-0.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: This contains reference packages used for building .NET Core. This is not meant to be used by end-users directly. Fedora Account System Username: rhea Please note that this package requires the .NET Core SDK, which is tracked via a separate bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802803
*** Bug 1802785 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I only see one issue so far: No license text is included. Can you add a %license LICENSE.txt line?
Indeed it's missing, and that should now be there, thank you!
I hate being pedantic, but could you post a new spec and SRPM link in a new comment? I see that the OP spec URL is updated, but the SRPM needs to be regenerated.
That's great, discovered other things that needed fixing. Both up here now: Spec URL: https://rhea.fedorapeople.org/package-review/dotnet-build-reference-packages/dotnet-build-reference-packages.spec SRPM URL: https://rhea.fedorapeople.org/package-review/dotnet-build-reference-packages/dotnet-build-reference-packages-0-2.20200108git9cc7dad.fc30.src.rpm
Closer. Thanks. Can you also adjust your changelog entries? The version formatting needs an adjustment. - 02.20200108git9cc7dad + 0-2.20200108git9cc7dad
Oh good catch. Updated in the same location: Spec URL: https://rhea.fedorapeople.org/package-review/dotnet-build-reference-packages/dotnet-build-reference-packages.spec SRPM URL: https://rhea.fedorapeople.org/package-review/dotnet-build-reference-packages/dotnet-build-reference-packages-0-2.20200108git9cc7dad.fc30.src.rpm
Thanks. One final issue. The date in the changelog needs adjustment. dotnet-build-reference-packages.spec: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue Feb 19 2020 Radka Janekova <rjanekov> - 0-2.20200108git9cc7dad 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. I think you meant 'Wed Feb 19 2020'. I'll pass the review, but fix it before importing. This review is PASSED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Note: See rpmlint output [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/profile.d, /usr/lib64/dotnet [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: dotnet-build-reference-packages-0-2.20200108git9cc7dad.fc30.src.rpm dotnet-build-reference-packages-0-2.20200108git9cc7dad.fc33.x86_64.rpm dotnet-build-reference-packages.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue Feb 19 2020 Radka Janekova <rjanekov> - 0-2.20200108git9cc7dad 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- dotnet-build-reference-packages.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib dotnet-build-reference-packages.x86_64: W: no-documentation dotnet-build-reference-packages.x86_64: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue Feb 19 2020 Radka Janekova <rjanekov> - 0-2.20200108git9cc7dad 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- dotnet-build-reference-packages (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- dotnet-build-reference-packages: dotnet-build-reference-packages = 0-2.20200108git9cc7dad.fc33 dotnet-build-reference-packages(x86-64) = 0-2.20200108git9cc7dad.fc33
Indeed thank you :)
I just noticed you need to be sponsored. Let's get that going.
This is taken care of. Congratulations on becoming an official Fedora packager, Radka!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dotnet-build-reference-packages
Built in rawhide: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-18534af280