Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sd3fchjiyxwy2l9/xs-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/eks4q3mts7lw5hd/xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Hi, I have rebuild this package to meet Fedora Packaging Guideline and require a review. I obtained the original package from build.laptop.org.au/xs/XS-0.7+/repos/XS-F17ARM/SRPMS/xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.fc17.src.rpm I would appreciate your feedback and review. Fedora Account System Username: kparmar4 Output of Fedora-Review Tool: Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kparmar4/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-xs- tools/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) [ ]: Package is not relocatable. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 33 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.26 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Mock Version: 1.1.26 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.26 Start: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/kparmar4/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-xs-tools/results/xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-i386/root/', 'install', '/home/kparmar4/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-xs-tools/results/xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.noarch.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] Error: Package: xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.noarch (/xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.noarch) Requires: xs-config You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Rpmlint ------- Checking: xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.noarch.rpm xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.src.rpm xs-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xs-restore xs-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xs-sum xs-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xs-check xs-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xs-encrypt xs-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xs-backup xs-tools.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://dev.laptop.org/git/packages/xs-tools/snapshot/xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh /usr/bin/python config(xs-tools) = 0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17 coreutils pygpgme python python(abi) = 2.7 xs-config Provides -------- xs-tools-0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17.noarch.rpm: config(xs-tools) = 0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17 xs-tools = 0.5.5.g49ddc07-1.0.2.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-17-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec --name xs-tools
Hi, this package have already been proposed on 879752 , so i think you should sync with the others students to know who exactly do what :) I am marking this bug as duplicate ( and so close it ) *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 879752 ***