Spec URL: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/ac100/cbootimage.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/ac100/cbootimage-1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Compile a text representation of a BCT into a binary Fedora Account System Username: kwizart
Hi, - you should add the instruction for getting the tarball ( since there is no url ) - rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is not needed - the summary is a little bit cryptic, so maybe it would be nice to be a little bit less technical :)
And license is GPL v2, not GPL v2 or later, so the License tag is incorrect.
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed - bundle of some AES code, not sure if that's a problem - license is wrong, cf earlier comment - source tarball should be documented ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/954117-cbootimage/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 30720 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 %doc. [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 does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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). [-]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [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]: 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: cbootimage-1.0-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm cbootimage.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bct_dump cbootimage.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cbootimage 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint cbootimage cbootimage.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bct_dump cbootimage.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cbootimage 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- cbootimage (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- cbootimage: cbootimage cbootimage(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (cf29f98) last change: 2013-02-08 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 954117
Spec URL: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/ac100/cbootimage.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/ac100/cbootimage-1.0-2.fc17.src.rpm Description: Compile a text representation of a BCT into a binary Changelog: - Update license field as GPLv2 Only - Add source checkout description - Spec Clean-up
Ok, the issue were corrected, and I doubt we can trace the AES implementation as being from anywhere ( especially if it was modified ) So review granted.
Thx for the review: I'm updating the summary and description as found in the debian package: Tools to dump and generate boot config table on Tegra devices
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: cbootimage Short Description: Tools to dump and generate boot config table on Tegra devices Owners: kwizart Branches: f17 f18 f19 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).